Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive834

New editor with CIR, BLP, COPYVIO issues

Could someone please have a nice, quiet chat with brand new editor User:Daffyduck1234? He's been adding copyvio images to pages (IMDB images uploaded to Commons as "own work" and then added to article here), adding unsourced non-consensus material regarding the death of Margie Hines, creating sub-stub articles with a single sentence and no references, and so on, and seems reluctant to listen to what's on his talk page -- instead he just bulls ahead. BMK (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to bring this, which I think could possibly be a self-portrait, to the attention of whoever talks to the editor. BMK (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this person might be this guy at first, but the pattern isn't quite right. Sigh, I'm becoming a jaded admin seeing socks everywhere. :( -- Atama頭 01:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that one of the drawbacks of the job, becoming jaded.

The young man just dropped a warning on my user page (not my talk page), so he's certainly seeing the comments I'm leaving for him, even if he's not taking them into account. BMK (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's on the record, BMK. You have been warned. Anyway, I'll see if maybe another person chiming in helps, sometimes people think that if one person is addressing their misbehavior, it's just some jerk, but if someone else comes in maybe there's a legitimate complaint (although it can also mean the second person is the jerk's henchman or something). But it's worth a try. -- Atama頭 01:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have made any difference - he created two new crude unsourced sub-stub articles. I'm afraid that this is going to come down to a competency block, since I'm not sure that the editor is understanding what he's being told. BMK (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

One step forward, but then a step sideways: The editor is not uploading copyrighted pictures to Commons now, just very bad photos of streets taken from inside a car. These purport to be (and may well be, I don't know) streets named after the subjects of article - i.e. "Pennell lane" for William Pennell - and they are being added to to the subject's articles without citational support or explanation. He also continues to add unsupported birth and death dates to biographical articles - again, these might be accurate, and he might be getting then from a source, but no source is listed. There's also been no response on the talk page to the various comments, including now a final warning from another editor. BMK (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A comment on his talk page from the editor, but it's not encouraging. Under the section title "I'm tyring to he helpful": "Stop talking to me I created Wikipedia and I forbid blocking my edits."

Unfortunately, I think it's time for a competency block per WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY. BMK (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely fair, BMK. He actually said "I'm trying to be helpful". Not that I'm against Atama's block or anything. Good block. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

Bish (may I call you that?), I think it's quite fair when "I'm trying to be helpful" is paired with "Stop talking to me" (discussion is the essence of collegiality and impossible without it), "I forbid blocking my edits" and "I created Wikipedia", which are both either trolling or delusional. (P.S. If you're responding to the misspelling of "trying", that was a typo on my part.) BMK (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed it was a typo, after I checked. But I was actually responding to the misspelling of "trying" as "tyring" and the misspelling of "be" as "he", in a quote of five words. I'm sorry, but the impression I got before checking (which not everybody does) was that you were showing up the user as a careless typist, and I didn't think it should be left without comment, to make the same impression on others. But it's moot, the user has been blocked, and not for careless typing. I call you BMK, so feel free to call me anything you like, down to and including "B". Bishonen | talk 17:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

I'm not a touch-typist, so my rate of typos goes up the faster I try to type. Please rest assured that I was attempting not to characterize Daffyduck1234's typing or spelling, but to point out the content of their talk page comment, which was rather strange.

As you say, water under the bridge at this point. BMK (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Marnette D, whose opinion I respect, appears to think that we're being trolled. This is quite possible, as at some point extreme incompetency and trolling are very difficult to tell apart. It actually doesn't matter all that much, though, since the end result is the same: time and effort are sucked up and the project is not improved. BMK (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about Hanlon's Razor... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I've just run out of AGF. The brand new editor User:Sandboxxxxx is quite obviously a sock of Daffyduck1234, making the same edits on Margie Hines, re-creating the speedily deleted sub-sub-stub Buddy red bow (which I've again marked for speedy deletion). Competence or trolling, eh, who cares, the editor isn't going to listen, and isn't going to play by the rules, so both accounts should be indef blocked. BMK (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur about the trolling. The "final warning" was received at 16:12, 26 March 2014 and after that warning, they performed edits that added incorrect information then immediately reverted, at Margie Hines and Elbridge Bryant. It looks to me like taunting, where they can say "I did it again but I reverted right away so you can't touch me". In light of this, I've blocked Daffyduck1234 indefinitely, and I'm also going to block the sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. An odd case, I wonder if we'll see the editor again? BMK (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What I wonder is whether we've seen the editor before. My sockpuppet radar went off immediately when I first read this report (as I said then), but I tried to exercise WP:AGF and then the person started using a sock, so maybe my instinct wasn't so much paranoia. -- Atama頭 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Their areas of interest seem rather tightly defined, so it might be worthwhile poking around. There's been a fair amount of back-and-forth about the Margie Hines date of death issue, but I can't recall if there was socking involved. BMK (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There was indeed socking, and I was in the middle of reporting it (memory starts failing as you get older, you know). It's not impossible that our friend was this editor, who stopped editing a month ago, and who earlier admitted to being this puppet master. My description of the writing style of the master fits:

[A] distinctive style of writing: one line paragraphs, infrequent use of caps, use of ampersand and other informalities, and they generally don't sign their posts. Their edits are generally helpful, but their writing is weak, and their attitude on talk pages a bit confrontational with overtones of ownership.

That's not quite enough to say it's a match, but it's pretty intriguing. My AGF tank's a bit empty at the moment, so I'll say that it's possible to interpret a one month gap in editing as an attempt to make their edits too stale for CU to use as comparison -- but, of course, there have been other gaps of that size and longer in the editing history. BMK (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now he's editing as User:Ginsterama. Undoubtedly the same person as Daffyduck1234 and Sandboxxxxx. BMK (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Two more unsourced sub-sub-stubs created (Kate Wright and Victoria d'orazi). SPI opened at [1]. Can someone please salt Buddy red bow until this blows over? BMK (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And another Phil philmar. BMK (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And now Marcus powell. BMK (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And indef blocked by NawlinWiki. BMK (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The sub-stub article Marcus powell just deleted by NawlinWiki was previously deleted on 22 August 2007 by Lectonar. Could an admin take a look at that deleted article and report who created it? It might help figure out if Daffyduck1234 is a known puppetmaster. BMK (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Similarly Kate Wright was previously deleted two times. Knowing who created those two would be good. BMK (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marcus powell was originally created by Matt0012 (talk · contribs) on 22 August 2007. Kate Wright was originally created by BoopBoopaDoop (talk · contribs) on 20 October 2009 and recreated by Bayoneta (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2010. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As I remarked above, Bayoneta is an admitted sock of BoopDoopaDoop (see the SPI report on that editor in the archive), who was allowed to keep editing after apologizing. Matt0012 is a new name to me. BMK (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That is, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BoopBoopaDoop/Archive. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a big backup at SPI, so I don't expect to hear anything from that quarter for a while, but it does seem highly probable that Daffyduck1234 (aka Sandboxxxxx, aka Ginsterama) is Bayoneta, admitted sockpuppet of Betty Boop-obsessed puppetmaster BoopBoopaDoop. Why Bayoneta apparently stopped responsible editing to return to disruptive activities is a bit of a mystery, but maybe he or she missed the excitement, I dunno. I do think that we're currently at a standstill in the absence of further activities from this editor or results from a CU, so probably this thread should be closed for the moment, and the discussion can be revived if things pick up again. BMK (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser requested - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI was just clerk-endorsed to check for connections. BMK (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A CU check found no connection between the Daffyduck editors and Bayoneta (who is the only known link to BoopBoopaDoop), or, presumably to any other sockfarms. Since there hasn't been any disruptive editing on this front for a while, an uninvolved party should probably close this. BMK (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Sandboxxxx is Daffyduck1234, and Ginsterama is probable. BMK (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Three week edit war over WP:BLP violations

I'm not a regular editor of this article about Ted Nugent, however it is on my watchlist and I happened to notice an edit-war over what appears to be a pretty obvious WP:BLP violation. A non-reliable source was being used as a source for contentious material about a living person.[2] I have no idea whether the accusation is true, nor do I care. But we cannot state in Wikipedia's voice an opinion held by a non-reliable source (AKA an advocacy organization without a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking). Therefore, I have partially reverted the edit.[3] I invite other experienced editors knowledgeable about WP:RS and WP:BLP to examine the issue. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I support this removal. Good work. --John (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, better work would have been looking at the extensive RFC discussion on the talk page and at least acknowledging it. No idea why you posted about it on here, especially since that content was only one piece of the "edit war" that died down 10 days ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point, NeilN. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

RS for the quote itself: Los Angeles Times, CNN, New Yorker. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There is edit warring going on, its almost exclusively by Citizen150 who has been blocked for his warring multiple times on this article (and has confirmed socks doing the warring for him too). That warring continued today adding in unsourced information that the editor has tried to add many times [[4]]. The "BLP" issue has been repeatedly removed by this user, and repeatedly added by a quite a few other editors. Its very well sourced that Nugent made these statements. Its also very well sourced that its been commented on repeatedly. There are the sources Finlay posted above, and a longer section in the body of the nugent article (see blockquote below). (And if the lede was a BLP violation, the body surely is too, but it remains) That quote misses the other statement Nugent made at the same event where he called Obama a Chimpanzee. There may be a case that this should not be in the lede, because of recentism, etc, but it was in no way a BLP violation. (Although the more reliable sources already used in the article should have been used in the lede section). Also agree that removal ignoring the RFC, and not mentioning it here, is very questionable, but does not rise to the level of requiring any admin action against AQFK. (Although the fact that AQFK explicitly !voted for removal in the RFC, and its pretty clear he is in the minority viewpoint in that RFC, but he removed it anyway... hrm, seems iffy).

In a January 2014 interview at a Las Vegas hunting and outdoor trade show, recorded by Guns.com, Nugent was recorded stating, "I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America". After being chastised by Rand Paul, Nugent apologized for his "subhuman mongrel" statement.

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Removal against consensus

Hi. Today User:Lightbreather has repeatedly removed some material against consensus.[5][6] The latter removal was after three editors (including me) objected to removal.[7][8][9] So, it seems like a pretty simple situation. User:Lightbreather claims that the removal was kosher because a different sentence at a different article was removed, which kind of seems irrelevant to me (the other article is currently the subject of an ArbCom case). I tried to make reasoned arguments, but they mattered not. A block for LB would be very helpful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

All of my reasons are given in the very long (sorry, but not all on my account) discussion of yesterday (27 March 2014) "Suggestion that Nazi GC is an international concern should be removed" on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page, and in the 20-27 March 2014 "International debate?" discussion on the Gun control talk page. However, I will be happy to answer any other questions that arise. In a nutshell, IMO: Anythingyouwant misrepresents the conditions under which the material in question was added to the article, and the "consensus." I suggested that he start an RfC on the subject, but instead, he started this. Again, I will be happy to stop what I'm working on to answer any questions that arise. Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a question that arises. Is it not correct that you reverted against the express objections of three editors at the article in question?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A block for the 'contributors' who see Wikipedia as an outlet for pro-gun propaganda entirely unsupported by legitimate academic sources would be even more helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not objecting to my request, Andy. Of course, when describing a political issue at Wikipedia, reliable sources that describe the opposing positions are necessary, and can be used without Wikipedia endorsing any of it, which I think is the case here. Unless our goal is to use Wikipedia for stamping out descriptions of one side of the issue, while promoting the other. Anyway, this is simply a case of ignoring policy in order to revert against consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of ignoring policy, I note that the assertion regarding Brazil in the disputed text is entirely unsourced - I suspect because the actual source for this appears to suggest that the "pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil" was unlikely to be understood in a Brazilian context, having been created by outsiders with little understanding of local issues - and of course misrepresenting sources would be against policy. And for the record, your 'thanks' are premature - I do object to your attempt to get someone blocked for supporting policies - which of course overrule any supposed 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, the removed phrase simply says that the fear-of-tyranny motivation for supporting gun ownership "is mostly but not entirely confined to the United States." If you believe that that violates any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, then I am dismayed by the incredible degree to which you are wrong. Anyway, you've only objected to one of four supporting sources, which says: "NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home". In what universe does that not support the statement in the text? Perhaps it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to slant the POV impact of its political articles, but in that case I suggest we get an additional policy written up, such as WP:Ignore all liberal bias. I emphatically deny any suggestion of promoting any POV at Wikipedia, but plead guilty to tilting against bias where I see it at this website. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, the 'removed phrase' includes a reference which quotes Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Culture (I'd missed that it actually named the source - sorry). What it fails to do is indicate that the quote is cherry-picked, and intentionally misleading, as noted by FiachraByrne on Talk:Gun control some time back [10] - the source states that "...the vast majority of Brazilians would have been able to make sense of the discursive appropriation of ... Hitler" - making the claim that the Hitler poster indicated a 'fear-of-tyranny motivation for supporting gun ownership' in Brazil less than credible. Such cherry-picking of misleading quotes is however par for the course for the pro-gun lobby. Still, I'm sure you can live with that since the POV being pushed isn't 'liberal'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Grump, I never I thought I'd hear "sorry" from you. The removed sentence obviously did not claim anything about Brazil or anything about Hitler. You're making me sorry that I ever logged on to this website, and I'm sure ArbCom will soon complete what you have started. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually look at diffs before posting them on ANI in future. The first diff you linked [11] clearly and unambiguously includes the quotation "[T]he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism" as part of a reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That quote is in a footnote. The removed sentence says nothing about Brazil or about Hitler, and if anyone would like to shorten the quote in the footnote then it's fine by me. I'm not going to be the one to shorten it, because it's a perfectly sensible and honest quote, and it doesn't imply anything that isn't true according to that reliable source. I honestly don't see any way that that footnoted source does not support the removed sentence of text, which is so obviously correct that I would be flabbergasted at this discussion were it not Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. We don't 'shorten' footnotes that intentionally misrepresent sources - we remove them entirely, along with the supposed 'reference' they are supporting, as contrary to both Wikipedia policy and elementary standards of encyclopaedic integrity - as Lightbreather had done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we allowed to say "bullshit" here, or is that only allowed for the regulars? Anyway, I have nothing further to say to you this evening Grump. Have a wonnnnnnderful evening, y'hear?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Our article text did not mention Brazil. The source does. Its one of four (?) sources used, all which clearly document that argument being used outside the US. If you disagree, and think the argument is restricted exclusively to the US, find a source saying so. Otherwise take your WP:OR elsewhere.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out that sources are being intentionally misrepresented is not 'original research' AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Two of the three editors (Anythingyouwant and Gaijin42) who objected to "the sentence" being removed are parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Andy is also a party to the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you popped up User:Bbb23, perhaps you could clear something up for me. Does the ArbCom case cover Gun Politics in the United States or not? Had any of us thought that it did, we would have insisted that Lightbreather be a party. Maybe the case only covers those editors at that article who get in LB's way?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An Australian, pro-control source, also used as a reference, dedicated to the topic of control says "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany". And then proceeds to give several examples of the argument being made in Australia. The statement is 100% indisputable, reliably sourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A simple question: was the quote you mention selected (a) to accurately reflect the opinions of the author regarding the significance of the 'security against tyranny' argument in the Australian firearms regulation debate, or was it (b) selected to bolster claims that the NRAs argumentum ad Hitlerum has international support? Before answering, I suggest you read the source concerned... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a simple question for you Grump. Do you think that the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has been entirely confined to the United States? Hmm?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That has precisely nothing to do with the issue I have raised - that sources were being intentionally misrepresented in the material Lightbreather removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

I propose that Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned to stop misrepresenting sources and stop forum shopping, with a clear message that any more of this will result in escalating blocks.

Everyone else seems to be keeping it mainly cool in a heated debate, and at least trying to stick to discussing actual content and actual sources. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - He has just inserted the "international" material back into the Gun politics in the U.S. article again. [12] Lightbreather (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did, with the support of 4 out of five editors at talk page, and with additional language intended to address the objection from AndyTheGrump, though I doubt it will.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously, I emphatically deny misrepresenting anything. Wikipedia will either decide to handle controversial political subjects neutrally, or it will inevitably be a propaganda machine, and my choice would be for the former instead of the latter. Also, please note AndyTheGrump's statement below: "I've not stated that it was Anythingyouwant who was responsible for the initial misrepresentation...." I oppose any and all misrepresentations in this Wikipedia article, or any other.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you oppose. But since you are (a) the subject of the proposal and (b) not an administrator, your opposition is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am often irrelevant. Mine is not the only irrelevant response to your proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lightbreather has SERIOUS ownership issues and should be topic banned. She has been to ANI so many times due to this, that it is surprising that something hasn't been done by now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

To be fair, I should point out that I've not stated that it was Anythingyouwant who was responsible for the initial misrepresentation. As for 'propaganda machines' though, the evidence is entirely clear that the whole absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum regarding firearms law is been driven by a partisan lobby allied with the NRA. It is also clear that their arguments are entirely unsupported by academic historiography, and are cobbled together - in a a "cherry-picked", "decontextualised" and "tendentious" manner, as one academic critic noted [13] - not in the interests of promoting understanding that particular period in German history, but in order to influence a debate in another place and time entirely. That is propaganda. 15:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence that was blatantly removed against consensus said absolutely nothing about Hitler, and that sentence was manifestly supported by its four footnotes, as much as any sentence at Wikipedia could possibly be. Andy, why is it not possible to stick to the issue at hand?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence removed was referenced with footnotes which used the words 'Hitler' twice and 'Nazi' three times. Hiding pro-NRA propaganda in footnotes doesn't make it immune to scrutiny. And 'consensus' cannot overrule policy which states that references must not misrepresent sources. That is the issue at hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you have objected to one of four footnotes. But much more than one of four footnotes was removed against consensus. As to that one footnote, you have not disputed that it is a reliable source. Whether it is being misrepresented depends upon what the footnoted sentence says, and in the present case the footnoted sentence merely states what should be extremely obvious to any neutral observer: that the tyranny argument is not entirely confined to the United States. This is not rocket science here, and at some point we have to (gasp!!!!!!!) look at the facts. More generally, are you saying that policy forbids Wikipedia from saying that the NRA (and others) have used a Hitler argument? Can you not see that describing "propaganda" is not the same as propagandizing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This will be my last comment, so feel free to have the last word, block me, ban me, or anything you want. I felt obligated to bring attention to the recent defiance of the consensus policy, even though I had no illusions that ANI would lift a finger. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, per Godwin's law, it is more or less inevitable that Hitler will eventually come up in debates about firearms regulation. That does not however indicate that NRA propaganda on the issue has any serious credibility elsewhere - and cherry-picking sources to try to prove otherwise, in the absence of sources which actually state as such, is synthesis, and a violation of Wikipedia policy. The simple facts are that it is only in the U.S. that 'Nazi' analogies with firearms regulation have had any serious traction - elsewhere, as the Australian and 'Brazil' sources make clear, such arguments are either seen as irrelevant, treated with derision, or (as in Australia [14] "the Jewish community finds [it] repugnant and offensive, and totally rejects the comparison") called out as the grossly offensive abuse of the memory of the Holocaust for propaganda purposes that they clearly are. The sources are being cited to support a claim that the facile 'Nazi' analogy has traction elsewhere, without noting that the sources cited make it entirely clear that the analogy has been treated with utter contempt. Misrepresentation of sources is contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Mentioning the fact that the propaganda exists does not violate any policies. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A bizarre post by Anythingyouwant on my talk 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.

---

Evidently, Anythingyouwant seems to think that it would be preferable for disputes on Wikipedia to be resolved by resort to firearms: "I assure you that if duelling were still legal, I would be seriously considering it" [15] Since such methods of resolution are not only against policy, but illegal (and given the fact that we are separated by the Atlantic ocean, impossible), I have to assume that the purpose of this post was to intimidate me, rather than for any other purpose - and accordingly, I call for Anythingyouwant to be indefinitely blocked for behaviour entirely incompatible with both Wikipedia policy and elementary standards of human behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As I explained to Grump: "there was no threat whatsoever. I seriously doubt that you would accept a duel, even if it were still legal, and even if I challenged you to one." Funny how he left that part out. Funny how he also left out his previous statement that I am a "patronising little troll".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have often found Anythingyouwant's editing and commentary problematic. But I can't get worked up about that one. As you say, Andy, there's an ocean between you. How could you possibly be intimidated? Bishonen | talk 17:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

Actually, that is an assumption on my part - I have no means of ascertaining where Anythingyouwant actually is. In any case, it is clearly written in a manner intended to intimidate, since it can serve no other purpose. And yes, it is intimidating to have fellow contributors suggest that they would like to kill me. If this isn't 'problematic', I have to ask what is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be illegal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point, since it appears that Anythingyouwant is intent on continuing his intimidatory behaviour, I shall withdraw from this discussion, and contact the WMF directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't want to kill them either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as crocodile angst? At worst, this is an accusation of cowardice, which isn't very nice.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Crocodile angst. Yes, apparently there is. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• comment: The dueling statement goes over the line. What if the statement had been "I assure you that if assault were legal, I would be seriously considering it"? I think it would have been seen as intimidating. At the very least, Anythingyouwant should be warned express to their views in less threatening and more civil ways. I am One of Many (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to duel never resulted in any physical harm to anyone, unless both adults consented to it. Since this point seems not to be well-understood, I now realize that making the comment was a mistake, and I sincerely apologize for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: I think much of this disagreement arises out of the ARBCOM delays in releasing a proposed decision for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control which was scheduled to be posted on February 12th. Granted that there are almost always delays, but waiting an additional seven weeks for a decision that might involve some topic bans means that editing in this topic area is still contentious. I'd like to recommend admins wait until a proposed decision is posted by ARBCOM to act but it's still unclear when that will occur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And in the meantime making violent threats against editors is okay? — goethean 19:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone seriously believes this is headed toward a pistols-at-dawn situation. (Besides, knowing Anythingyouwant, I think if anyone agreed to a duel with him, he'd immediately launch into an interminable, legalistic argument about the technicalities of the code duello until all of the seconds got fed up and went home). It's more like: if we've gotten to the point that one editor is yearning for the opportunity to duel another, then we're waaaay past battleground behavior—the editing environment on these articles is broken and adult supervision is required. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be illegal" (above) is pretty bad. It doesn't devolve to "I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be wrong in so many ways" but more toward "I would kill you if it was legal (and thus I could get away with it)" which carries the strong implication of "I wish you were dead". That's a pretty hurtful thing to say to someone as well as inflammatory. Is the dispute really that important? Let's not talk like this, people. Perhaps a nice hot steaming cup of Please Be Quiet is in order for the offending editor?

On the bright side, invitation to duel at least indicates that the person considers one a social equal and fellow gentleperson. If he considered you a mere yeoman or townsman he would presumably just threaten to thrash you with his cane or trample you with his horse. Herostratus (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The illegality is not the only reason why I do not want to kill Andy. But I have already apologized for mentioning duels at his talk page (see above at 18:47, 29 March 2014), so maybe we can move on now? I will even forgive Andy for calling me a "patronising little troll", if he would forgive me for mentioning that a duel might be satisfying in the present case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• May I suggest you duel with pillows, or something equally undangerous. Perhaps a virtual duel in an online game such as Wii Sports Resort might be suitable. Jehochman ^Talk 20:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Banjos. Writegeist (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Handbags at dawn? Guy (Help!) 22:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedia! We don't invite others to "duel" in the manner done here, nor to continue to insult and taunt them: ("there was no threat whatsoever. I seriously doubt that you would accept a duel, even if it were still legal, and even if I challenged you to one"...according to Anythingyouwant.)--MONGO 22:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As an honest person, I get tired of being relentlessly accused by AndyTheGrump of being a propagandist, a patronising little troll, etc, etc. I overreacted by mentioning duels at his talk page. I did not suggest that he would be a coward to not accept a duel, only that if I did propose one (which I didn't), then he could simply decline, with no injury to anyone. People who generously dish out heaping portions of condemnation should understand how offensive it is to the recipients, and such assumptions of bad faith have no place at an encyclopedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps...how do you think we proceed now? Is an interaction ban needed?--MONGO 23:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Both should behave as if there's an interaction ban in effect, because if something like this comes up again, that would probably be the result. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I will. That is why I left the gun control article last year, and have not been back to edit that article since (I explained this to Andy today at his talk page). I guess ArbCom will address what's been happening today at Gun politics in the United States (that's why I started this section at ANI).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• No wonder people laugh and joke about the petty politics and buffoonery that runs rampant behind WP's façade. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Since it seems clear that Wikipedia admins are unwilling to deal with Anythingyouwant's intimidatory behaviour here, I should probably consider taking the matter to ArbCom

...though given their apparent inability to make any progress whatsoever on the 'gun control' case (now almost seven weeks overdue), I would have little expectation of it being dealt with appropriately there, either. Frankly though I am almost beyond caring - it is becoming more and more obvious that this whole farcical enterprise is little more than an exercise in vanity publishing, combined with the worst aspects of 'social networking', and with a generous dollop of corrupt and contemptible POV-pushing of the most overt kind (paid and unpaid - though personally I find the latter more obnoxious, as paid editors at least have the excuse that they have to earn a living somehow), all carried out without the slightest concern for the readers, the only legitimate justification for the existence (and charitable status) of the encyclopaedia. In such circumstances, the most honest course of action has to be to leave the whole festering heap of semi-literate, factually inaccurate and biased beyond all hope of redemption 'articles' to the POV-pushing drones, clueless Google-miners and fancruft-shovelling subteens, in the hope that readers will come to recognise sooner exactly what it is, and look for 'knowledge' elsewhere, where it might actually be compiled by people with honest intentions, and with the slightest clue regarding what they are writing about.

And for the record, Anythingyouwant's assumption that (were duelling hypothetically legal), I would turn down his hypothetical offer is at least open to question, given that (assuming said hypothetical duel permitted the challenged party to chose weapons, as is the custom in civilised countries), I would have to seriously (though hypothetically) consider the relative merits of having the opportunity to (hypothetically) run him through with a sword against the risks involved, and might well consider it worth the chance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The matter has already been brought to the attention of ArbCom at the Workshop page. For the record, User:Lightbreather has again deleted material against the consensus of four editors at the talk page of Gun politics in the United States. The deleted text is indicated by strikethrough: "Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere." There was no attempt by LB to rephrase, to compromise, to save the footnoted reliable sources, or anything of the kind. This is what happens when jihad is waged, motives are impugned, and policies are disregarded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Then stop waging 'jihad' (interesting turn of phrase), stop impugning motives, and stop disregarding policies... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect you'd notice that the stricken sentence is exactly what you asked for today, in between condemnations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked for nothing other than that policy be complied with, and sources not be misrepresented. As for 'footnoted reliable sources', it has already been amply demonstrated that the quotes in at least two were cherry-picked to 'prove' a particular POV, with complete disregard for the broader context which indicated the contrary. Under such circumstances, policy requires their removal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The "POV" in the stricken sentence is that the tyranny argument gets little traction outside of the U.S. Last I checked, that was your "POV" as well, and also the "POV" of the cited sources. Anyway, as suggested above by other editors, I will do my best to not interact with you anymore, Grump, and I hope you will reciprocate. Nothing good can come of it, and we both end up looking like complete buffoons. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

None of this "duel" nonsense would be welcome in a "civilised country," save in the context of your therapist's office. 76.72.23.170 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"This is what happens when jihad is waged, motives are impugned, and policies are disregarded." I know Anything thinks that I'm disregarding policy (I disagree), but waging a jihad? Dang! Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential section heading issues

I changed the heading of the previous subsection from "Since it seems clear that Wikipedia admins are unwilling to deal with Anythingyouwant's intimidatory behaviour here, I should probably consider taking the matter to ArbCom" to "Further discussion" citing that it was a more neutral section heading, and didn't contain an assertion embedded within it. Also it brought in line with policies. AndyTheGrump (who worded the initial heading) reverted my change. I feel that my change was correct and consistent with and directed by policies and guidelines, and that the version that it was reverted to is a misuse of headings. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And your doing this is entirely unrelated to the fact that you have been a leading proponent of gun-lobby propagandising on Wikipedia has nothing to do with this, is it? In any case, your removal made a complete nonsense of my following sentence. And no, saying that Anythingyouwant was involved in 'intimidatory behaviour' isn't an assertion - it is a statement of fact, as acknowledged by his (half-hearted) apology for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledged no such thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So the claim regarding 'sincere apologies' [16] you made at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop wasn't 'sincere' after all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologized for using the word "duel" at your talk page, I do not believe you were intimidated in the least, nor was that my intention, and yet we see the fuss it has caused. My only intention was to convey to you how upsetting your accusations and insults are, but I did it in a suboptimal manner. Anyway, as campaigns of demonization are often successful at Wikipedia, I expect you will be getting the results you have been striving for. In the mean time, can you please leave me alone? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be 'left alone', I suggest you refrain from posting intimations of violence on talk pages in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider character assassination just as serious as physical violence, and you have done a lot more than intimating as far as that goes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are no longer denying that your post intimated physical violence? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm done here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I collapsed the section above; Andy reverted. I've got no dog in this hunt, and I request someone else close this and be done with it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Update

With no support at the talk page of gun politics in the United States, and with opposition from five editors at that talk page (me, Gaijin42, Sue Rangell, North8000, and Darkness Shines), LB has declined to restore any of the following material that she has deleted multiple times against consensus (the deleted text is indicated by strikethrough and I previously quoted it above):

“ Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further and, according to law professor Erik Luna, greater motivation is fear of state confiscation and tyranny.The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere. ”

This deleted sentence is very obviously neutral, well-sourced, relevant, and concise. LB is not a party to the present ArbCom case, so I disagree with the reluctance of administrators here to deal with this issue until the ArbCom case is complete. In any event, assuming I am still around after the ArbCom case, I suppose the only option would be an RFC of some sort, if no action is forthcoming here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point I think most editors are simply going to allow Lightbreather to have her way with the article. I know I am. I am throwing in the towel. She has made the last 100 edits or so, and ignores consensus. She has been to ANI many many times for this sort of thing. A topic ban is fully in order, yet nobody wants to do anything due to ARBCOM. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at page Whoniverse

The IP 41.132.48.255 is being extremely disruptive in a content dispute over at this page. Their actions include:

• Taking a near constant hostile tone. [1]
• Refusal to negotiate to reach consensus despite several offers to collaborate (1, 2, and 3).
• Personal attacks ([17], [18], [19]).
• A series of grudge reverts against User:Mezigue (1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14).
• Block evasion (User talk:41.132.48.255#March 2014 and User talk:93.186.16.245#March 2014).
• Outright lies [20].
• Refusal to understand Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SYNTHESIS, and most importantly WP:NPOV (Talk:Whoniverse).
• Repeatedly removing the version User:Mezigue and I, as well as User:GraemeLeggett to an extent, have been attempting to improve, in favor of their own poorly written, poorly sourced, POV version (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).
• Copying of large sections from other articles into the talk page [21].
• As well as the fact that they have engaged in such interactions before
• And adding unsourced/not notable "Criticism" sections to discredit the definition of the term that they disagree with. [22], [23].
• Along with modifying other articles to fit their thesis (1, 2, 3, and 4).
• And most recently WP:OVERTAGGING to "prove" their point [24]

Notes: if anyone decides to do something about this, then a extended semi-protection of the page would be most effective since this user's IP changes regularly. G S Palmer (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a little puzzled by this posting, given that the IP is already under a 48 hour block for edit warring (his second in a week; G S Palmer was also blocked for edit warring on the article earlier this week - they were at AN3 over the same article in mid-March, but were both warned). There is already administrator intervention, and there's no need to semi-protect the article if the single individual disruptively using an IP can be handled individually. I do not know if the IP will work within consensus processes after his block expires or if he will continue behaving disruptively, but it had been my intent to continue to monitor and hand out escalating blocks as appropriate to anyone who persisted in edit warring.
  
  However, I don't have strong feelings about this, and it's already been quite a time suck, so if another admin wants to weigh in or take it on, feel free. :)
  
  Because the IP is blocked, he cannot speak in his own defense here. Needless to say, he disagrees substantially with User:G S Palmer's account above. I considered unblocking him to allow him to participate and might still, but since this section is relatively quiet thought perhaps just reproducing his response to G S Palmer's notice might suffice. I'm collapsing it because it's long. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

the IP's response

Yeah, real clever to do that while I can't edit for 48 hours, and then act as though you gave me a chance to reply there. The only disruptive editor is you yourself, for constantly adding unsourced material, your relentless reverting, deleting properly sourced material, and arrogantly refusing to even look at Wikipedia Policy, assuming you know best. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Did you actually read what you wrote? You reported me for being disruptive, for asking you yo use Wikipedia Policies such as WP:RS, WP:OR etc? And you reported me for an "outright lie", then linked to the page which shows I was right? And I a the one who has made hostile edits? Have you actually read some of the stuff you wrote in edit summaries, and on the discussion page there? Hopefully, since I can't reply there for 48 hours, someone sensible can actually read all the unpleasantness you have brought to that article and its discussion page, and my attempts in vain to try and explain why your OR article can not be used for Wikipedia. And the only reason I copy-pasted Wikipedia Policy on that discussion page was because you refused to edit articles using Wikipedia Policy. After I had repeatedly asked you not to keep adding unsourced material, referring to Policy, your response was that you refused to read the Policies, and yet you somehow 'knew' that I was "interpreting them overly harshly". I constantly added links, which you stated outright on your own talk page that you were not going to read. So I copied them word-for-word on the discussion page to show they're not "my harsh interpretations", they're Wikipedia Policy. And then you continued to edit the way you wanted regardless. So it was a mistake on my part to copy-paste the Policies there, because I naively assumed that it may change your believing that adding reams of unsourced material, and making artciles out of whole cloth may change. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC) [25]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC) By the way you complain about me removing your unsourced sections, yet you constantly remove this link [26], [27], [28], [29], and many more... You also remove this: [30]. And you delete this tag here for something that is irrelevant to the subject of the article [31], where in this source coes it state what you are using it as a reference for? [32], guess you still haven't read OR [33]. The thing is ALL of these(and more) have been brought up on this discussion page again and again and again, and yet you dismiss it out of hand and keep removing RS, adding unsourced material, using sources to "reference" things that the sources never actually say, and adding irrelevant material, such as your quote from Survival, which thankfully even Mezigue said was utterly pointless being in the article. If you had actually tried to read Wikipedia Policies, or engage civilly in the discussion then this would have been avoided. However, you had your own vision of "what the article should be", and nothing, least of all actual Wikipedia Policy will convince you that your version is not up to Wikipedia standards. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If you will keep an eye on the page to make certain that the situation doesn't escalate, that would be fine. The reason that I brought this here was because I worried that once the IP's latest block expired the whole thing would start over again. G S Palmer (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I intend to, User:G S Palmer. If the whole thing starts over, editors who edit war will be given escalating blocks. It doesn't help that you do not come to this with clean hands yourself. Please read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and help avoid muddying the issue. I would suggest that when he returns you ignore your past history or dispute and talk to him about the issues that he raises as if he were somebody else entirely. --Moonriddengirl

(talk) 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. The article Whoniverse was a rambling, unsourced OR mess. [34].

I posted this [35], and received this response [36].

I edited, making notes. I tried to include others [37], however [38].

So I started editing, leaving notes [39], and still inviting others to discuss it. After some time, I had corrected the article. Was it perfect? Not at all. But it was a first step.

Then, after much editing and discussion, User:G S Palmer appeared.:[40]. This after a long discussion which he chose to ignore.[41].

I tried to clear the air [42].

But User:G S Palmer was having none of that. I tried bringing up the topic more than once [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] but User:G S Palmer would have none of it.

He has repeatedly removed a WP:RS...[50]...such as at [51], [52], [53].

He removed a valid properly sourced section [54], written by Tat Wood of [55], [56], [57], not to mention [58].

And yet he has no problem adding [59](removing another tag, and note his explanation. That's in the first paragraph).

He removes tags for sources which never mention the article's subject at all [60]

He deceptively moved a RS which was merely usage of the term, and never described a thing [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whoniverse&diff=601656112&oldid=601655880].

He never bothered reading any Wikipedia Policy. [61]

But that's no surprise as [62].

(The only reason I pasted Wikipedia Policy on the discussion page was to try and show him where he was going wrong.)

By the way, I brought this up before he posted this here..[63]

The problem is that the article is still a mess of OR, SYNTHESIS and Unreliable Sources, And of course the fact that he use Lofficier's WP:RS in the first paragraph, yet anyone who actually Lofficier's words sees that Lofficier says almost the exact opposite to what User:G S Palmer states, then falsely claims Lofficier as a WP:RS for. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but these points aren't very well backed up. This edit ("I tried to clear the air") wasn't even one of yours. I also don't see what point you are trying to prove with the quote from my talk page; it doesn't seem to say anything about whether I would read policy or not. G S Palmer (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It shows my repeated attempts to discuss things. And the relentless dismissal out of hand by you in particular of any sort of discussion. Just as you have now once again removed a RS that adds NPOV and balance to the still OR article. [64]. After [65].

As for the link, I'm not sure how that happened. I meant to add [66]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of facts

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

---

To: The Administrators Wikipedia English language project "en.wikipedia.org'

Sirs

Kindly be advised and take notice of fact that the Registrar of your domain name(s), M/s Mark Monitor Inc, is not replying to repeated communications sent to them by the Top Level domain administrators concerning the a) libels against and b) impersonation of the "India Against Corruption". These notices have been issued by the Internet Domain administrators to enforce Terms of Use for registration of Wikipedia domain names, especially anti-abuse and impersonation clauses therein.

The impugned article, which can be easily viewed in India, is "paid content" written by a paid editor to promote various impersonators who are using "India Against Corruption" name, copyright and trademarks to solicit votes as candidates for ongoing Parliamentary elections under election tickets of Aam Aadmi Party. The continuance of these articles on your website is in violation of India's laws and also US laws, and constitutes "lobbying" and is a direct interference by foreigners and foreign agencies in India's democracy and India's democratic processes. The concerned WMF trustee from India is now well apprised of the dispute over this article and the public domain information of rampant abuse by Indian PR agencies to write fake articles on Wikipedia with connivance of involved Wikipedia administrators [67].

India Against Corruption therefore requires that the Administrators of this website/domain "en.wikipedia.org" take immediate steps, and not later than thirty six hours in any case, to comply with India's laws in addition to US laws, to disable publication of the impugned article within the territory of India, where elections are in progress and a model code of conduct is notified, promulgated and in force. The continuance of these paid promotional contents on Wikimedia Foundation servers, and in violation of WMF Terms of Use, for purpose of lobbying and influencing the outcome of India's elections by foreigners is a violation of the Hosting privileges accorded to Internet Intermediaries in India

Please also note that India Against Corruption has not initiated any "legal" proceedings against Wikipedia /WMF, and this notice of facts is not a legal threat, so kindly do not assume this notice to be a legal threat.

The IAC complaint to the Internet authorities is an administrative remedy invoked by IAC after the paid editor stopped participation, in Mediation, to discuss his edits, his sources or the unimpeachable counter evidence / sources IAC provided to rebut his malafide content and sources, thereby causing the Mediator to close the Mediation for reason of non-participation by Wikipedia community. IAC is now also in possession of emails from the authors of the reliable sources cited by the paid editor, which disclaim and decry the usage of their scholarly books on Wikipedia to malign our body. The 2 OVERSIGHT requests made thereafter by IAC for the defamation/libel and privacy issues have not been replied to by Wikipedia's Administrators either.

Finally, please note that we shall be using this IP address for future communications, if any. We advise you to kindly seek opinion of the General Counsel of Wikimedia before again taking any unilateral hostile actions against "India Against Corruption" as was done in the past.

"HRA1924" for India Against Corruption — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1640:5:0:0:0:3:BA (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC) |}

In response to the above, see Arkell v. Pressdram. [68] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Private Eye lost eventually [69] admitting "Mr Arkell has now, albeit belatedly, complied with the suggestion made to him at an earlier stage of the proceedings.". Landirenzo (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The source you cite (a forum, so probably not RS) seems to say that they won. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Au Contraire. Snopes is as reliable an authority on exposing internet hoaxes as Wikipedia is as an encyclopedia :-). "nasw.org" is not a legal reporting site. Nonetheless, Mr.Pressdram verifiably paid up, Mr.Arkell took the money and went away, leaving Private Eye to gripe and spin doctor the sour grapes version cited.Landirenzo (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Post-close factual note: the Snopes thread concludes by noting that according to Adam MacQueen's 'Private Eye: The First 50 Years', although Arkell proceeded, the case fell apart and Pressdram received costs (Pressdram is a company, not an individual, it is the publisher of record of Private Eye). When they say that Mr. Arkell did eventually comply, they mean that he did eventually go away. This interpretation is supported by Jack of Kent. I don't know of any reliable authority for the claim that Arkell won, and it seems hardly plausible that the running joke would exist if he had, since it would essentially be libellous. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

---

When one says Pressdram "received" costs, it means that costs were awarded against Pressdram. If Pressdram had won, it would say Pressdram was awarded costs. Anyhow, this letter is a hoax. 2A01:430:1A:0:0:0:0:217 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Block requested

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

---

An I.P. editor 99.68.24.85 (talk · contribs) has made ten random vandalism edits in the last half hour. Trackinfo (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by Hahc21 (talk · contribs). Vandalism reports are normally filed at AIV. Doc talk 07:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Suspicious edits

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

---

Resolved: Blocked by User:Smalljim. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

86.26.247.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making suspicious edits. This editor is adding causes of death to biographies. He is doing so at such a very high rate that it is unlikely that these edits are researched. Some are blatant vandalism (for example). I suspect all of these edits are just vandalism, but since it is not obviously so, I'm reporting here instead of at WP:AIV. Slideshow Bob (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.147.28.111 for the background to this.  —SMALLJIM  15:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked a few of them and they were verifiable. I didn't look into the sockpuppet issue. I restored one edit with a citation, then decided not to do more, since I'm not sure the info belongs in infoboxes. In the case of Israel Keyes, the info (died by suicide) was already present and cited in the article text. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Added: you're right that the Carl Berner one is dubious at best, though Isaac Asimov died of AIDS at a rather advanced age, apparently contracted from a blood transfusion during surgery. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Severe canvasing and meat puppetry on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Friendly_artificial_intelligence

Concerning Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Friendly_artificial_intelligence. This is not directed at any one editor, but referring to an unfolding process of canvasing on this deletion discussion page. The situation is becoming increasingly convoluted due to the calls on social media to help the page from those relevant to it and related to the poster. In a nutshell: the topic is mathematically impossible, which is why it has, in the years it was presented on the Web informally, and on this encyclopedia, had no technical peer-reviewed theory or proof in the literature. And the only two sources that are available are from a non-technical source that just happens to be published as a book of essays by Springer, which is easy to confuse at first glance with the journalistic quality areas of that organiztion. This was all pointed out and it was requested that notable sources be provided, but not a single valid citation in this now overlong discourse on the page has been brought up. The reason this isn't going to happen is because these sources don't exist, which any administrator will quickly be able to verify. I am posting this here because of the obvious canvasing and puppetry that is occuring, and that there have been claims made of bad faith. I do not wish the page to devolve from the focus on the topic any further and strongly believe administrative intervention is needed. Thanks in advance. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion has become a bit long winded but is on topic and well within civility standards, surprisingly so. I don't yet see any puppetry, although I would agree that monitoring is a good idea. COI editing isn't against policy, although it is good to note for the discussion. At this stage, there isn't anything else to do. I have faith the closing admin can weigh the discussion and the COI in order to determine a consensus. If a wave of new editors comes, they can be tagged as SPA and likely the closing admin will greatly (or completely) discount their !votes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think that COI is much of an issue at AfD, as opposed to article editing, where NPOV needs to be maintained. On the other hand, AfD is really all about policies and opinions, and if a COI commenter doesn't have policies to support their opinion, the closer is unlikely to put much weight on their comments. If there are no reliable sources, the article is unlikely to be retained, no matter who expressed what opinion about it.

    On the other hand, it's generally counter-productive to have one editor respond to every differing opinion with more commentary, as it creates the impression of hounding and of attempting to squealch further commentary. Best, instead, to allow everyone to have their say and leave it to the closer to put the weight where it belongs. BMK (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on that, Don't bludgeon the process some time ago. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(moved here from unnecessary new thread:)

I've been extremely civil and on policy over the long course of the discussion on the AfD page for "Friendly AI". I've asked for assistance from admins early on, and we managed to resolve some of the issues. The page was canvased and the responses became very long as a result. A lot of people came in treating it as a vote. Things managed to settle for a while. However, now, an admin by the name of Silence has come in and I'm not certain that they are acting in the best interest of consensus. I was dissapointed by being attributed as making statements I did not make, which were quoted and presented as if I had said them. This seems unduly difficult coming from an administrator, and I'm concerned about balance. Also, some of my comments were "accidentally deleted" as well, but I've still assumed good faith. But it is becoming more difficult. I've now asked if we could keep from addressing editors and stay on point. I also very politely suggested that we are at an impasse and to not engage in simple contradiction to help with brevity. Others are now ignoring the AfD status and attempting to cull the page contents to sway the AfD decision. I'm not sure if that is balanced, but it would be grand if several other eyes could help smooth things out. Thanks in advance. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 10:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC

Raised a community ban proposal for Az-507 at AN

As Az-507 (talk · contribs) has been brought here several times recently I thought it appropriate to mention WP:AN#Community ban proposal for Az-507. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Offensive IP

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

---

Please review the editing of 74.62.92.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Offensive edit summaries that need hiding (again) and attacks on editors. Blocked by Dougweller for the same stuff back in January. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Block the IP, I don't give a shit. [...redacted...] 74.62.92.20 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ask, and thou shalt receive. (3 months, if anyone cares, given the last was a month, with no apparent conflict?) WilyD 12:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been an editor that has had extensive problems with multiple editors. He comes back everynow and again and leaves me fanmail. He jumps Ip's so he'll be back eventually maybe even before the block expires but the behaviors doin't change so it won't matter they will end up blocked either way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Are blogs allowed?

Wrong venue for something that doesn't require administrative actions. Please discuss at the article's talk page first. If that doesn't result in consensus you may want to ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is this a case where such a blog would be allowed? [70] 2601:D:9400:5FF:F087:36AB:9F75:FFF6 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article's talk page or WP:RSN and not WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this isn't really a question for ANI. Just so it looks like we're not passing the buck, though, at a quick glance Youtube is virtually never an acceptable reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Necrothesp (talk · contribs)

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.

---

Necrothesp (talk · contribs) is systematically renaming all baronets from their titles as Sir John Smith, xth Baronet to John Smith, apparently without achieving conesnsus first. I find this extremely petty action, made on an entirely spurious basis. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to discuss this with Necrothesp? Probably not since you didn't even notify them of this thread. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Did Necrothesp (talk · contribs) get consensus before making mass changes? Probably not since I have not seen them discussed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversial edits should always be discussed first before taking the issue to this board. And that means if you object to these mass moves you should have tried to convince Necrothesp to undo them. I can see how you may view these moves as disruptive but that doesn't justify reporting another editor here without getting into contact with them first. As to the page moves, the applicable naming conventions state that prefixes like "Sir" should not be included in the article title and per WP:MOSDAB we don't need disambiguations for names of persons when there is only one article with that name. So I can see where Necrothesp is coming from. But on the other hand, the ordinal and peerage like "Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond" are supposed to be included in the page name per the naming conventions for nobility.

What does bother me a little though is the speed of Necrothesp's moves. I'm not saying they're automated but 2 page moves per minute is quite an output. That said, I would like to see a response from Necrothesp who has now stopped moving pages. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing controversial or automated here. Just me implementing something (WP:NCPEER) that should have been implemented on these articles long ago. These are peers, not baronets, and the same conventions do not apply as clearly stated in the naming convention. -- 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We already have a consensus. Maybe if he bothers to actually read the longstanding naming convention (WP:NCPEER #3) before commenting, User:Barney the barney barney may care to apologise for his accusations of "petty" and "spurious". I wait with baited breath. Incidentally, I didn't make "mass changes". I count fourteen! This seems to be a simple case of one editor not liking a naming convention and objecting when another editor implements it. It's not like it's a new convention - it's been there for years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There are big problems with WP:NCPEER - the first being that baronets aren't peers. The changes are clearly petty, spurious and entirely unnecessary. I do not apologise for speaking the truth. The trouble is that countering a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with acquiescence means that those with pathetic petty agendas will inevitably succeed if those who are unimpressed by such actions do not stand up to them. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, he really needs to apologise now. This aggressive, accusatory attitude against an editor following the naming conventions (which he is clearly fully aware of, but doesn't agree with) is uncalled for and thoroughly unhelpful. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with WP:NCPEER. It is used by all of us who regularly edit British biographical articles, as a glance at Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom will soon show. The convention quite clearly states that the style for baronets is only to be used when disambiguation is necessary. The fact that baronets are not peers is a complete red herring. We know that. The naming convention doesn't say they are. NCPEER is merely a shortcut. What Barney the barney barney has quite clearly done is disagreed with the naming convention and instead of discussing it in the appropriate place or bringing it up on my talkpage (I would have course have pointed him towards the naming convention), he has brought it here to accuse me in the hope that he will get support from other editors unaware of the naming convention, its longevity, and the fact that it is complied with and supported by other editors who work in this field. When rumbled he has simply upped his aggression level and made further accusations. The whole thing leaves a sour taste, quite frankly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As Necrothesp says, "NCPEER" is just a convenient shortcut; the naming convention (that "Sir" and "nth Baronet" should only be used when necessary for disambiguation) has been stable since August 2005, despite an unpleasant conflict centered, in part, around baronets. The change was conceived and affirmed by editors active in peerage and baronetage articles, and it hasn't been particularly controversial since. Barney, bringing this straight to AN/I was absolutely wrong: this should have been discussed at Necrothesp's talk page, the talk page for NCPEER, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage before coming here. I would caution anyone making these moves (to the less complex page title) to make sure the baronet is the only notable person with that name; once the page has been moved, if someone edits the redirect, the move can't be reversed without administrator intervention. (This was being used tactically in the conflict I mentioned.) For unusual names like "Lowthian Bell", that's a fairly safe assumption, but high-speed renamings do tend to alarm people even if they are within policy. Anyway, the NCPEER guidelines are applicable and of long standing and Necrothesp is, as far as I can tell, complying with them. If you have a problem with those guidelines, take it to the talk page there; this is not an appropriate place for them. I think we're done here. Choess (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

HOBOPOCC keeps deleting Wikpedia talkpage warnings of disruptive editing messages on his talkpage

HOBOPOCC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) twice deleted Wikpedia talkpage warnings of disruptive editing messages on his talkpage. I assume in an attempt to with wash his disruptive editing past. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a user to keep warning notifications on their talk page. They are not active blocks or sanctions. Wikipedia:OWNTALK Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How are we to keep track of a patron of disruptive editing of a user then? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Memory. History. Block log. Editing restrictions log. ANI archives. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The talk page history contains a record of past warnings. Further, when a user removes a warning from their talk page, that's seen as a de facto acknowledgment of the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I see; thanks for the info Gaijin42 & C.Fred! In future I will include in the "Subject/headline" of a talkpage message the word "Warning of disruptive editing" to make it easier to keep track of a patron of disruptive editing of a user. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• This article is one of the worst kicks in the balls of WP:NOTNEWS since that whole "Occupy" fiasco--that is, the slew of articles detailing every single citizen and their dog who showed up to protest something. It should be deleted but hey, "it's in the news", no matter what the quality of the source is that says that 100 people showed up in Kherson or Zaporizhia. We can't wait until something becomes actual established knowledge--including photos, videos, and guesswork-maps that make our project into just another citizen activism site. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Altimgamr 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.

---

Can an admin please block this sockpuppet of User:Altimgamr that has this edit. The user name may be an actual password as he has disclosed it before (see "Edits by User:44thPresidentOfUSA" above in ANI.) Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking that sock. He is also currently online as User:Chevrolet Cruze with edits like this with a fake forum reference and nice edit summary. Bahooka (talk) 06:02, 1 April 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:Mohammadaas

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 vandalism-only account blocked already is repeatedly vandalizing their own talk page. See here and here. M. Caecilius (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If vandalizing own talk page, then there's no question that the user's talk page rights should be revoked if not already revoked. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:18, 1 April 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.

Roy Harter et al

• Roy Harter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Skinnyman (studio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dave McDonald (radio personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Skinnyman2010 (talk · contribs)
• 208.68.178.38 (talk · contribs)
• Royharter (talk · contribs)

Hate to bring this here, but I've already requested help at the BLP and username noticeboards, and asked that Roy Harter be protected, with no responses yet. A network of related and largely vanity articles by COI accounts, with copyright and poor sourcing problems and the possibility of sock or meat puppeting. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Did I do something wrong? I apologize if I did. I'm trying to fix the article by citing references. Thank you. Skinnyman2010 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Three-admin panel requested for closure of Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8, when the discussion has run.

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Such a move request has been made in the past, and has frequently engendered very spirited discussion. The last time such a discussion went for the full discussion period, it was closed contentiously by a non-admin, leading to an equally contentious move review. In order to head off any shenanigans, I would like to request that a panel of three completely neutral and uninvolved admins (i.e. not having participated in the conduct or closing of any of the previous discussions) convene to monitor this discussion, make sure that it does not veer off-topic, and close it either at the end of seven days (if no extension is sought) or at the end of fourteen days (if an extension is sought). Cheers! bd2412 T 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to close it either by myself or as part of a 3-admin panel. I have no particular interest in the article, other than being a voting-eligible US citizen.--v/r - TP 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks - do you want to see if you can find the other two, or wait for more volunteers? bd2412 T 20:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The RM just opened today so there is no hurry. We can wait to see who volunteers.--v/r - TP 20:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd feel comfortable being a member of the 3-admin closing panel. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. One to go. The discussion seems to be quite civil this time around, and I hope it will stay that way, but it is worth keeping an eye on just in case. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Further to this suggestion of a panel to close this move request - which I support and thank User: BD2412 for thinking of it - I'd like to request that an effort be made to have at least one female administrator involved in the closing. Some issues raised have included the meaning of a "maiden" name vs a surname, which is something that might benefit from a more gender-balanced review. Please take this request in the spirit in which it is given, which is not at all meant to be divisive and certainly not to cast aspersions on the brave souls who have volunteered to step up and help sort this out - whose gender I do not know and who I am sure will be fair - it is merely to try to assure that all concerns are considered in the broadest possible manner. Thanks Tvoz/talk 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Female administrator" and "closing a move request" immediately brings User:BrownHairedGirl to mind. We often disagree, but she is fair, well-experienced, and has no lack of spine. bd2412 T 22:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Tvoz/talk 02:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to request that an effort be made to have at least one administrator with the last name "Clinton" involved in the closing. Some issues raised have included the meaning of "Clinton", which is something that might benefit from a more "Clinton"-balanced review. Please take this request in the spirit in which it is given, which is not at all meant to be divisive and certainly not to cast aspersions on the brave souls who have volunteered to step up and help sort this out - whose last name I do not know and who I am sure will be fair - it is merely to try to assure that all concerns are considered in the broadest possible manner. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe BHG is a Clinton. But really, do people with a name really understand it? And it someone in the family is close enough to this, would they not be biased by their existing beliefs which may not reflect what our policies are? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In light of the foregoing, and today's date, I would like all of the administrators participating in the closing panel to affirm that they are not 1) Hillary Clinton; 2) Bill Clinton; 3) any member of the Clinton family; or 4) any member of the Rodham family. However, George Clinton is okay. bd2412 T 22:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But what if they're not Bill Clinton, but rather Bill Clinton? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to User: BD2412's suggestion, I would be happy to volunteer to be one of the 3-admin panel. I will not be available to help until Saturday or Sunday, and hope that would be OK.

I have no particular interest in the outcome, beyond a general concern for respecting established policies.

To the best of my knowledge, I am nor related to any members of the Clinton or Rodham family. I am not now, nor have I ever been, called "Hilary" or "Rodham" or "Clinton", or any permutation or combination thereof, either on wiki or in other contexts. This disqualifies me per CombatWombat42's test, so I will leave it to others to decide whether that black ball is fatal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. The proposal was initiated at 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC), so the time for discussion should end at 02:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC), unless additional time is requested. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BHG. Tvoz/talk 02:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not, have not ever been, nor intend to be in the future, a member of either the Clinton or Rodham family.--v/r - TP 00:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That's inconsistent with this evidence. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You've caught me. I am a distant cousin of theirs. Coincidentally, I am also a distant cousin of yours as well.--v/r - TP 01:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Sydney Opera House

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.

---

• Summary - Since December 2012 Pigsonthewing has been persistently restoring {{disputed}} to Sydney Opera House despite having no support for this from other editors and without explaining what his actual problems are despite numerous requests from editors to specifically explain his issues. Several editors have removed the tag and/or engaged in discussion and the agreement is that there is no need for such a tag. Pigsonthewing refuses to allow the tag to be removed despite this, but will not actively engage in proposing specific edits that will address his concerns. This is more than a content dispute, it is a pattern of disruptive editing ignoring the opinions of other editors and insisting on his unexplained resolution without compromise.
• Background - On 3 December 2012 HubbleConstant, a new editor, made his only ever edits to Wikipedia, all at Sydney Opera House. The first completely removed an entire section,[71] and was appropriately reverted by Tbhotch. The second added content not supported by inline citations, which also partially removed a substantial amount of valid content, effectively "breaking" the article (as I later had to explain to Pigsonthewing),[72] and this was subsequently reverted by Ian Rose as uncited.[73] HubbleConstant made his third and final edit, an inappropriate date change,[74] which was also reverted by Ian Rose. Several hours later, Pigsonthewing restored HubbleConstant's edits, including his removal of the substantial amount of text.[75] An hour after that, I reverted Pigsonthewing's change, explaining in my edit summary, "Edit broke section, which is about the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beg" (the end was lost as the edit summary was too long but should have been "beginning in the 1990s".[76] Pigsonthewing reverted that, with his edit summary saying, "see talk; and WP:SOFIXIT". He also started a discussion on the talk page that continues to this day, as well as on my talk page. That discussion is now archived at User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 14#Sydney Opera House.

The problem with HubbleConstant's edits are several, as I explained to Pigsonthewing in the discussion on my talk page. In the first place, they broke the article, inserting a substantial amount of text in the middle of a section, while removing most of a sentence, specifically "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust a" leaving only "s a design consultant for future work", the final section of the sentence. Secondly, at least some of the sources are invalid. For example, I could not find a copy of the June 1978 Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary, or determine in which of 5 possible copies of The Weekend Australian printed in December 1983 "a major interview" appeared. Thirdly, and probably most significantly, the section of the article that was edited, currently titled Reconciliation with Utzon; building refurbishment, deals with the 1990s attempts at reconciliation with the building's designer in the leadup to significant rfurbishments of the building's interior spaces. This is supported by all of the content in the section, which deals only with the late 1990s and beyond. It does not deal with earlier events; these are dealt with earlier in the article. This was explained to Pigsonthewing very early on.[77][78] However, Pigsonthewing fails to get the point, despite comments by other editors, dismissing their comments and refusing to respond to requests.

Initial discussion ended after my last post on 4 December 2012,[79] so I was surprised on 27 December when I noticed that Pigsonthewing had added the {{disputed}} tag,[80] without further comment. Since then it has been removed several times by various editors, after Pigsonthewing has been absent from discussion, usually for a long time.[81][82][83][84] Each time though, Pigsonthewing has restored it,[85][86][87][88] restarting discussion, but without any progress as Pigsonthewing refuses to respond after a few posts. Editors have explained on the talk page why they see no need for the tag and attempted to engage Pigsonthewing in further discussion but his responses have been vague. For example, recently Bjenks asked Pigsonthewing "to clearly state which facts in this section are disputed so that they can be logically addressed." His response was, at best, unhelpful,[89] and a subsequent response was almost cryptic.[90] Bjensks' next request was completely ignored. After a week of no further input I removed the tag again and left a note explaining why this can't continue.[91] Naturally, Pigsonthewing restored the tag yet again. His following comments on the talk page demonstrate why this issue is still unable to be put to bed. "I did not respond to your last post, because you've resorted to simply repeating earlier statements and already-answered questions" was his opening salvo. As I explained in my subsequent reply,[92] it is necessary to repeat things because he does not listen to what he is told. In 3 December 2012, at the very beginning of the discussion, I suggested rewriting the edits and placing them in a more appropriate section,[93] something also suggested by Bjenks recently.[94] I've even specifically said "If you wish to reintroduce the edits in the appropriate section, properly referenced and without breaking the article then please do so",[95] but Pigsonthewing still argues that nobody will "propose or accept a way forward that does not deny these facts".[96] Clearly, there is no way forward if Pigsonthewing refuses to acknowledge the suggestions that people have made and simply refuses to respond when he doesn't want to. His unwillingness to engage in a collaborative effort to address his perceived problems is not justification for retention of the {{disputed}} tag. Previous comments indicate that he apparently wants other editors, not him, to fix the problems but since he won't specify what the problems are (vague responses are no help) we don't know how to fix his problems. His most recent post is no less vague than previous posts.[97] It seems his aim is prolong the discussion so as to ensure his tag remains in the article, which is disruptive. In the last bout of discussion on the matter, which started on 26 March 2014, another 3,000 words have been added without any progress whatsoever. It is really time that this ended and Pigsonthewing needs appropriate "counselling" (again). --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Send back to talk: This seems like overkill and scapegoating of an individual, targeting someone personally instead of trying to sort out the issue. Because I view myself as being able to be fair to everyone involved—I am one of the people who have had positive interactions with Pigsonthewing, and I don't know AussieLegend or the other actively involved editors, to the best of my knowledge, but they seem like good folks too. I have asked everyone over there to kindly put the past behind them and help me to tease out the threads of the actual current dispute, and in particular, I am asking everyone to clarify if they view the problem as content, sourcing or formatting. If the issue actually is whether to include currently omitted material that the other editors of the article want to keep out, then I am hoping that each side will clearly (and BRIEFLY) line out their main arguments. If the dispute is over sources, then let's discuss the sources, and if it's a formatting problem, well, let's just fix that. To be honest, I am not entirely sure precisely what everyone is so worked up about over there other than past mistakes and past disputes seem to have taken on a life of their own that has gotten into personality disputes and has nothing to do with any actual issues. If permitted, I would be glad to attempt to mediate this dispute further at talk. Montanabw^(talk) 16:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not scapegoating at all. Pigsonthewing has persistently restored the tag but refuses to specify why the tag is appropriate. His only suggestion has been to move the tag to the top of the article, where it is just as disruptive because he still hasn't explained exactly what his issues are, something I've been trying to get him to do for well over a year now. This is actually "standard Pigsonthewing". He nominates templates for deletion on a regular basis, generally as redundant to another template but whenever another editor asks him to demonstrate how the template actually is redundant, he refuses to do so. Recently, he added fields to {{Infobox television episode}} and in the discussion, he was asked by several editors to give examples of where the parameters would be used.[98][99][100][101][102] The most he ever gave were vague replies.[103] Admittedly, that was more than the response I got to my question of where the consensus was that was used to justify restoration of the parameters.[104][105] I'm still waiting for a response to that question.[106] It's not that your offer is not appreciated, it's that the discussion has been going on (and off and on) for 16 months now and the responses at Sydney Opera House, along with the evidence of Pigsonthewing's disturbing attitude to discussions makes it clear that we're not going to resolve this at the article. Pigsonthewing is not a new editor, he's experienced and should know by now how to respond to polite requests by other editors. He just doesn't seem to want to. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute. A few questions:

• How did this edit "break" the article? It looks quite unbroken to me.
• Does the opening section of Wikipedia:Citing sources not say: "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed."?
• Did this edit by HubbleConstant not indicate his/her sources ("an interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978", "subsequent, often very witty interviews to the Sydney Opera's Monthly Diary and a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983" and "interview, by Ava Hubble, followed publication of her book, More Than An Opera House (Lansdowne Press 1983)"?
• Wasn't the correct action to have helped HubbleConstant to learn about inline citations and any possibility of CoI, rather than BITE and ABF?
• Did the communications "with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building" begin in 1990 or 1978? If the latter, then isn't current section Reconciliation with Utzon; building refurbishment factually incorrect? --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Content dispute" - Is it? We've asked Pigsonthewing to specify his problem but he refuses to specify.
• As I explained above, the edit broke the article by removing a substantial portion of text, leaving only a portion of a sentence, broken in the middle of a word. The error is obvious at the end of the new text. What was "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust as a design consultant for future work" became "But this is not the case.... he gave m s a design consultant for future work".
• "Does the opening section of Wikipedia:Citing sources not say" - The edit didn't "provide enough information to identify the source[s]" sufficiently enough to allow inline citations to be created. In effect, what he did was no different to specifying the maximum number of CPUs supported by Windows 8.1 sourced to Microsoft. "He gave subsequent, often very witty interviews to the Sydney Opera's Monthly Diary" certainly wasn't cited. As I explained above, I tried to source a copy of the June 1978 Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary (through the local library system) and couldn't get one. A search for the alleged interview was fruitless. "He gave ... a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983" is vague at best. Was the interview given in December 1983 printed in December 1983? In December 1983 there were 5 weekends. Assuming that the interview might have been held over until January 1984 I checked the first two weekends from that month as well and found nothing. The Weekend Australian is a big newspaper so I might have missed it but I don't think I did. There is much more information in the text that is unverifiable, so much so that it simply wasn't worth keeping, although I suggested to Pigsonthewing that if he wanted the text he could source it himself. WP:V says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." That wasn't done and apparently Pigsonthewing didn't want to do it.
• "Wasn't the correct action to have helped HubbleConstant to learn about inline citations" - That was the point of the post on his talk page. Unfortunately it was given after his third and final post and he has never returned.
• "Did the communications "with Jørn Utzon in an attempt" (etc) - Attempts to communicate with Utzon were made sporadically after his resignation but, quite understandably, he rejected them. However, it was not until the 1990s that attempts to reconcile with him were made in order to secure his involvement in the upcoming building refurbishments. So no, the section isn't factually incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's a content dispute. You insist on 1990. Other editors claim 1978. You're simply trying to remove someone who disagrees with you from the dispute.

"he gave m s a design consultant for future work" breaks the article??? You never made typos when you started editing? You're perfectly capable of fixing such a small glitch - yet you want to call this "breaking the article"? What's your agenda here?

The edit did provide enough information to identify the sources. This is someone making their first posts to Wikipedia and you expect them to understand what "inline citations" involve. WP:CITE does not demand such a level of understanding from newcomers - and for good reason.

I sympathise with your frustration over the vagueness of the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary/Weekend Australian. New editors often do that sort of thing. But were you also unable to find the book HubbleConstant referred to? I found it in two seconds: here, (More Than an Opera House), for example.

"Please do not add or change content, as you did to Sydney Opera House, without verifying it by citing reliable sources." is your idea of helping HubbleConstant understand? Did you ever read WP:BITE?

So communications with Utzon did begin 'sporadically' in 1978. So saying that the communications began in 1990 is factually incorrect, isn't it? --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"You insist on 1990. Other editors claim 1978." - No, that's not correct. You're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of events. The building refurbishments carried out in the 2000s weren't an issue in 1978. There were no plans at that time to refurbish the building interiors so the efforts in 1978 could not have been with an aim to effect the 2000s building refurbishments. Note that "1990" is not mentioned, we're talking about the 1990s, specifically the late 1990s. HubbleConstant was correct regarding efforts in 1978, that is not disputed and never was,[107][108] but he was incorrect in saying that the efforts in 1978 were about a project that had not yet been conceived.

"You're perfectly capable of fixing such a small glitch" - This was but one small part of larger group of errors. It wasn't a small problem to fix when you consider the other errors.

"The edit did provide enough information to identify the sources." - No it didn't. As I've already indicated, it was not stated whether the "major interview" was in fact printed in December or just given in that month. As I also indicated, I DID check 7 newspapers in the time period covered by the claim and could not find anything to support the claim so clearly the edits did not provide enough information.

"you expect them to understand what "inline citations" involve" - No I do not, which is why I left the note on their talk page. That note includes links to the appropriate pages. Remember too, I never reverted HubbleConstant, just Pigsonthewing who should know better.

"were you also unable to find the book HubbleConstant referred to" - In December 2012, yes I was unable to find it.

"So communications with Utzon did begin 'sporadically' in 1978. So saying that the communications began in 1990 is factually incorrect, isn't it?" - No it's not. The communications that began in the late 1990s (not 1990!) were specifically aimed at involving Utzon in the proposed building refurbishments. The 1978 communications were aimed at mending fences. They didn't start in 1978 either, there were attempts to communicate with him before then. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, this is NOT a content dispute. The problematic content that was removed from the article has not been discussed since 4 December 2012. Pigsonthewing abandoned discussion on 3 December 2012.[109] The issue here is the persistent restoration of the tag every time an editor removes it, without making any reasonable attempt to explain why the tag has been restored. Pigsonthewing only engages in discussion when the tag is restored and only for a short time, after which he disappears until the next time an editor removes the tag. Repeated requests to explain why the tag is appropriate have met with vague, unhelpful and often dismissive responses. I've only been assuming that Pigsonthewing wants the content back in the article, because that's all I have to work with as he refuses to elaborate. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course it is a CONTENT DISPUTE (don't those bold italic capitals make your message so much more convincing). You claim that communications with Utzon began in 1990; and HubbleConstant was claiming that they began in 1978. That's a content dispute by anybody's definition and your response is classic IDHT again. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. At the risk of repeating myself:
      • "You claim that communications with Utzon began in 1990" - Incorrect. Communications with Utzon with a view to involving him in the 2000s building refurbishment began in the late 1990s, not the year 1990. There were no communications with him about this project prior to then because the project didn't exist. Communications aimed at mending fences with Utzon actually began before 1978, but they were nothing to do with the not-yet-conceived late 1990s project. And please, don't accuse me of IDHT when you've talked about 1990 when that year was not mentioned and you've asked questions about issues that have already been explained before you even posted. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I see the problem here. There is a dispute over what the dispute is about. OK. So why is this at ANI again? Seems to me that it should go back to talk. Once we know what folks are even arguing about (and the generalized rant about templates in general isn't at all appropriate here, nor are personalizing the issues, by the way) then we can solve. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• What a fun meta discussion. Anywayz, this is about a "disputed" tag, where one would expect an editor who's been maintaining the tag (not, apparently, the article) to make a clear argument as to why the tag should be there. The only comment that I can see where Andy discusses actual content is this one here. That's not a lot of commenting for a lot of tagging and re-tagging. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• sigh* Just sit on Pigs and remove the tag every time he re-adds it then take him to the edit-warring noticeboard. Edit-warring against consensus does not require 3rr. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, two days ago Georgewilliamherbert asked Pigsonthewing to explain here the rationale for his addition of the tag.[110] As I've come to expect, the response was less than helpful.[111] I am assuming that the post Pigsonthewing referred to was this. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:29, 7 April 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.

Edit warring, erratic behavior, and being overall disruptive

This IP address: User:68.231.15.56 has been extremely disruptive to the 2014 in the United States article and has engaged in edit warring and personal attacks upon me and other users. He has been blocked before due to similar behavior and I request an administrator to look into this matter. He is not working collaboratively and thinks that he is acting as a 'good shepard' by removing any entry that he happens to disagree with and verbally attacking users, accusing them with slander and pushing agendas. It's quite aggravating, but I've been patient, giving him warnings about being a bully, but it's just going over his head. He continues to be disruptive. I don't know what else to do, but to request some kind of intervention. (Tigerghost (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

• Their edits make it pretty clear this is User:S-d n r, based on the IP trying to remove a tag on the registered users talk page. Not saying it is socking, but it may help to establish previous issues. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - I *entirely* agree with the comments made above by Tigerghost about the recent editing behavior of User:68.231.15.56 on the 2014 in the United States article - perhaps an administrator could help sort this all out in some ok way - thank you in any regards of course - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

both of these editors continously add useless information to an "ENCYCLOPEDIA" - These same editors use false consensus to make whatever unnotable addition their biases currnently dictake - I am confident that under external review other editors will agree - Tigerhost whom posted this has taken over the article 2014 in the United States and is attempting to rewrite it as 2014 in the Homosexual United States - review the addtions on the page yourself - this is bias of the worst kind - currently at least 10% of the submissions are about homosexuallity rights the other 90% (there are currently 54 event items of which 7 are about homosexual rights = 13%) weere made by me - my only purpose for the last 4 years and 8 thousand additions to wiki is to Good shepard the US article - this is clearly not the case with tigerhost or Drwhomever--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

as for useing my previous block as some kind of example that is slander of the worst kind - i have been blocked many times by lazy administrators whom are decieved that i have been ingaged in endless edit wars - THIS IS NOT THE CASE - these previous blocks all center around my enforcement of other editors using bots to remove date linking from articles that are "INTRINSICALLLY DATE ORIENTED" and was told by adminiistrator DEB to revert without comment (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_British_music&diff=prev&oldid=563945979) --68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

in fact Tigerhost and Drwhomever both keep adding highly unnotable items to the 2014 in the United States - like - an earthquake thwt was 5.1 killed no one and caused no injuries - Drwhomever also attemped to remove date linking and also rewrite the article in past tense - when EVERYOONE i guess except him knows that year in articles are to be written in active voice and present tnese--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am wanting other admin to review as I'm not long for bed, but I want to make a couple of points. Saying that all your previous blocks were by lazy admins isn't going to win an argument here. Admin do make bad blocks from time to time, but claiming several were all bad is bordering on WP:HEARing problems and paranoia. Second, I don't care about the content of the article itself, we admin don't decide content, but if you are the only one that thing a section should be removed and others thing it should be included, that means you are acting against consensus. If you really think there is a problem, you take it to WP:DRN, you don't edit war. I haven't looked deep enough to conclude anything (due to time), but your attitude here is worrisome, to say the least. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

please review Tigerhost's user page and judge for yourselves - his page say in no uncertain terms that he is a homosexual activist and anything that contradicts that he will do anything to destroy--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

as for consensus other editors have removed their submissions and they just reverted them also (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_in_the_United_States&diff=602216977&oldid=602201012 reverted here by Tigerhost https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_in_the_United_States&diff=602418329&oldid=602409015) --68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

yesterday I went thru the article and removed many of the problems that these two eidtors had created - I each and every time cited the reason or reasons for changes - Today Tigerhost reverts the whole thing (without commenting on each) slanders me with the satemment that I am a vandal - then threatens me about how I should do what he tells me to do cause he has openned a Admin noticeboard--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. IP blocked for a month for edit-warring, personal attacks, and WP:OWN behavior. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this is resolved, but I just picked up a message about it so hope it's still ok to comment. I had a similar experience with this user last weekend when I reverted their removal of an entry I made to the current events page, and was accused of slander for my troubles. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: and others, since we know this is User:S-d n r, I'm wondering if you should do a short block or note on S-d somewhere. If he comes back using the registered account, obviously that is block evasion and a doubling of the block (or more) would be due. I didn't have time to fully investigate the case, but from what I did see (and heard here), this block looks appropriate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, I don't think more is immediately needed - the IP is 'editing logged out' instead of socking, the stable IP mitigates against "avoiding scruitiny" as well. However if S-d n r turns up to circumvent the block, yep, that'll be evasion (a very odd case of an account evading an IP block, but evasion nontheless!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Modifanclub

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

 – Indefblocked for username violation

Modifanclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is undoubtedly a single purpose account, aimed at influencing the upcoming elections in India. The user has inserted copy-paste PR supporting one of the PM candidates and text against another (who is the inspiration of the user's account name). The last disruption went unnoticed in a high profile article for approximately an hour, so I'd like to request a block for this user before more damage is done. --RaviC (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, seems like a credible sock of Manveermalhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) due to overlap of article edits, similar editing motives and style. --RaviC (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

RaviC, can you provide some examples (diffs) of the edits you find disruptive or lines that might violate copyright guidelines? It will make your allegations easier to evaluate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely for a username policy violation. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 7 April 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.

Post RfC actions of Dr.K, Collect, Moxy and myself

I'm requesting input from the community on whether the (post-RfC) actions taken by Collect, Moxy, Dr.K. and myself were appropriate in light of the results of a recent RfC on the Justin Bieber article. Long story short, I feel that they are deleting information which during the RfC was actually supported for inclusion by a majority of the participants (if you count). I find Dr.K's behaviour in particular to be offensive because he did not participate in any of the RfC's two surveys, and only after the RfC is closed, he starts removing information which only 25% of editors supported deleting. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the long story

We have been involved in a content dispute in the Bieber article that started from late January. Essentially, I wish to add content to the article on Bieber's run-ins with the law, and Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. were all in opposition. As a result of our actions (and those of other editors as well), the article was locked from a month from February 10, and an RfC was created by Moxy, and concluded slightly over a month later. At first within the RfC, a General survey was created. All were informed, and Moxy, Collect and I voted. Dr.K. did not vote. Instead Dr.K. took to the threaded discussion section to say that we should clarify this RfC as to the exact incidents which should remain in the BLP ... We should itemise the questions according to each incident. So I took Dr.K's advice, created a point-by-point survey for the RfC, and informed all who had earlier participated in the RfC, including Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. Another response section was created for the second survey. For the second survey, I myself responded with reference to individual points. However, Collect and Moxy made no attempt to address individual points. Collect in particular seemed unwilling to contribute further, saying Sorry -- this is not how discussions normally occur for BLPs and I decline to play a game here ... Cheers -- but do not expect me to contribute to the "wall of text" discussion now or ever. Meanwhile, Dr.K. did not participate in the point-by-point survey he originally helped to propose. Because this was my first RfC, I was unaware of the proper procedure of how RfCs were to be closed. So after one month of the open RfC with discussion having died down for a while, I attempted to round up the discussion. Still, I believe that my conclusion was valid. From the general survey, those who outright opposed addition of the content (5 including Collect and Moxy) were outnumbered by the rest (12- made of 7 who said include most and 5 who focused on including legal issues). But for those who participated in the second point-by-point survey (eight editors), out of the 15 points, only 4 points received more than 25% opposition (2/8), these being points 7, 11, 13 and 14. So after being informed that I shouldn't be closing the RfC, I learnt the proper procedure and requested for an uninvolved editor to close it, and it was closed by Gaijin42 who said that there is consensus for inclusion of the information in some form ... In regards to specific points (1-15) for most of them there is not enough feedback to determine a consensus, but I will say that there is NOT a consensus to NOT include ... #7 and #13 appear to have the closest thing to consensus for non inclusion ... there is a consensus that these incidents are forming a larger portion of Bieber's reputation and notability. With the closure of the RfC, I updated the content in the article, removing #13 and trimming #7. Pretty quickly Moxy jumped back in to remove #15 saying Was there consensus for this BS stuff here? ... this page is Turing into a kids tabloid, and I reverted. Note that in the point-by-point survey #15 was only 2/8 not in favour of inclusion -> 1/8 once reliable source found, which was found. After that Collect went on to delete #14 (4/8 not in favour of inclusion -> 3/8 once reliable source found) and #15 also saying it was trivia of ephemeral significance. So Collect and Moxy didn't bother to vote properly in the point-by-point survey, and now they're removing points as they see fit over a majority opinion? But those weren't the worst actions in my opinion. Dr.K. went on to perform some Assorted removals from the legal issues, removing or trimming points 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. You can count for points 2, 3, 4 and 5, no more than 2/8 of the 8 editors who bothered to vote properly in the point-by-point survey (not Collect, Moxy nor Dr.K.) opposed points 2, 3, 4 and 5. So Dr.K. seemingly ignores the RfC and does what he sees fit, after not even voting in the RfC. Here's what Dr.K. had to say for himself. I did not participate in the RFC or the subsequent discussion trusting that a resolution could be arrived at, since so many people were discussing these points. But it appears that very little progress has happened. / I just can't believe the editorial judgement which allowed this fluff to creep into this article. Well if so maybe you should have participated in the RfC and voiced your concerns while it was still open! Gaijin42 later elaborated that Its an open issue that may be discussed further ... I do not see a policy based reason for exclusion - it received wide coverage in very reliable sources. this is the type of thing that needs to be resolved via editorial consensus and discretion.' - if so, how come Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. are all employing the "remove first" and "discuss later" policy? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Note Content inclusion in a BLP which is clearly deemed contentious requires a positive consensus - at this point only one editor seems to be asserting that such incidents must be placed in the BLP. As for his insistence that editors must "vote" on his point-by-point wall of text, that is just absurd. As for me calling his posts "wall of text" I invite anyone here to look at the length and number of his contributions and argumentation on the BLP talk page. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP are clear on this, and this forumshopping excursion does not belong at AN/I at all. [112] shows the edit at issue now -- noting that it gives much space to a "White House petition" which was deemed of no value except by basically a single editor, [113] is the talk page discussion thereon. Gaijin, the closer of the RfC, specified that the material requires editorial consensus. One and only one editor says no consensus is needed for the trivia - and I suggest he may be in for a rude awakening regarding his one-man-consensus here, and the tendentious editing thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The point-by-point survey came about due to a call for clarification so that there could be progress. I think it's just lazy that you didn't bother to offer a point-by-point reply. The petition was discussed in the RfC as well, and there were other supporters, although it was certainly contested. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem here is confusion among some editors about policy. One would think that BLP policy would all be located at WP:BLP, but there seems to be an important BLP policy that is spelled out at WP:Consensus and not at WP:BLP: "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Perhaps this quote might answer the current dispute?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mm, since that bit has been part of WP:CON for a long time (june '12) [114] it seems there is a decent consensus for that interpretation of consensus. I'd support adding it into BLP and seeing what happens. Regarding my close - clearly there was support for inclusion of the general topic of Bieber's scandals and how they are affecting his image, but the individual points were not widely !voted on (with the exception of 2 that had consensus to be removed). The lack of response on those other points brings up WP:SILENCE but as all of them involved contentious BLP (and some of themBLP that wasn't even about Bieber) it raises the bar for inclusion on those specific points. As far as ANI, this was a borderline close, with a lot of it coming out as no-consensus. Continued efforts to build that consensus are not a matter for ANI, but if there is edit warring or disruption, that is something for ANI. In light of the WP:CON snippet, it does appear that positive consensus for inclusion would be needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Although not perfectly aligned with the WP:CON snip above, BLP does already have something along these lines (although it appears to be targeted at the entire article, not individual bits of content). Perhaps the two bits should be conformed more

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that BLP quote. It seems pretty clear that material about "run-ins with the law" is contentious material that falls under these provisions of policy, so it should all be removed unless there is consensus to include or retain (assuming it's all presented in NPOV fashion, reliably sourced, etc).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint did very well here...the majority of his text has been implemented because of the RfC. But there is however points that did not have consensus at all that were not re-implemented. Leaving out a poll and info on his friends antics was the out come of the RfC from what I can see. -- Moxy (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

These are my edits of the 19th of March, which offended Starship.paint so much that he had to drag me to ANI, albeit with a nine-day delay. I try to avoid ANI as much as I can if for nothing else than to avoid the drama. So I wasn't planning to reply to these allegations, except that I felt that I had to address his comments (personal attacks) about my "offensive behaviour". He does not seem to understand that Bieber's biography is no place for showcasing the results of what police found in his bus while he was absent. Neither is Bieber responsible for what was found on the body of his friend Lil Za. That is why I removed this stuff. I also removed ...and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities. on the basis that "upsetting authorities" is a vague and comical allegation, unworthy of inclusion in his biography. I also removed the bit that Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood. as trivial and unworthy of inclusion in a serious biography. Residents are frequently upset with their neighbours, especially if they happen to also be leading the lifestyle of rock stars. And finally I removed: R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber. What does that have to do with Bieber? I did my best to improve Bieber's bio by removing this tripe from his biography. After a nine-day delay and without replying to my comment on the 20th of March on the talkpage of Bieber's article Starship.paint brings me to ANI. He could have tried to reply to my points there instead of transplanting the dispute to this forum. Finally, as I remarked on the talkpage of Bieber's article, I find that Starship.paint frequently badgers opponents with walls of text. That was one of the primary reasons that I did not take part in the RfC. I simply could not discuss this tripe while anticipating to be showered by walls of text defending the trivia. Perhaps Starship.paint can be advised to try to improve the encyclopedia in more substantive ways than trying to relentlessly defend the addition of inconsequential crap in Bieber's biography and subdue the opposition with showers of text. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• So now you're blaming me for not replying to your arguments, when your last post on the Bieber talk page called for me not to reply to your arguments because you know my stand well already. Do you want my arguments or not? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't exactly tell you not to reply. I told you to wait until someone other than yourself came to defend your points, since this is a wiki. I had hoped that you would get the message that since after nine days noone came to defend your arguments, that your points were not popular. Now I see that the message you got was to bring me and two other editors to ANI. I am not going to comment on the wisdom of that action. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty simple to me; you, Collect and Moxy are "regulars" of the article. It would seem that the majority in favour of inclusion of the legal issues in the RfC aren't such "regulars" editing the article. They apparently don't monitor the talk page, therefore they don't comment. If they disagree with me they can post so. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Once I disregard #7, all of this information you removed was supported to be included by a majority of participants in the RfC. General survey had 12/17 supporting the inclusion of the legal issues, point-by-point survey had 6/8. How is it that it's possible for you to ignore participating in the RfC, then coming around to remove points after the RfC ended with a majority of participants supporting these points to be included. I just don't think it's right. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC results on those points were debatable. Even the closer of the RFC commented they should be removed. These points were demonstrably irrelevant to the BLP as I have stated before. We cannot allow BLP-violating, irrelevant, nit-picky, low quality etc. etc. points into the article just because the RfC results were murky. That would be an utter failure of the collective editorial discretion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Debatable". Nice oversimplification. Imagine that you did bother to participate in the RfC's two surveys, and voted against every single point. Then 6/18 would be against the legal issues (33%) and 3/9 in the point-by-point survey (again 33%). It's a very non-murky "minority". Gaijin42 singled out points 7 and 13, not 2-5 (which you targeted). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: WP:CONSENSUSis not a vote and your use of numbers and "votes" for your "list of points" has no value whatsoever, and the fact is that WP:BLP is a very strong policy which means that policy-based arguments trump "I hate Justin Bieber" arguments every single time. At this point, moreover, you appear to have a bad case of WP:IDHT which may well be addressed at this point, as it quite appears that tendentious point-pushing may attract undesired attention to yourself. Verb. sap, applies. Collect (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• We've been through this before. Given that it is undisputed that each content point I have tried to insert has multiple reliable sources, I bring up a sub-policy of WP:BLP, which is WP:WELLKNOWN. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.
• This is exactly what happened the last time. You bring up policy, I bring up policy, we revert each other, RfC was started to gauge the wider community's stand on this issue so that we could have progress. RfC concludes with more people tilting towards include. I know RfCs don't rely on voting, but this is exactly what the community feels, and I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that.
• I've already argued before how each individual point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, so I can do it again if you want, but you'll probably call them "walls of text" again and ignore them, just like how you've done so in the past. Tell me you want me to prove how each point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, go on. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 14:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that. Please leave this nonsense. Repeating it will not make it true or put people in a zombie-like hypnotic trance to do your bidding. But I think I know why you have invested so much time and effort to defend adding this trivia which is unrelated to Bieber directly. The common thread between Bieber's bus inspection by the police while he was absent, Lil Za's cocaine bust and Khalil's arrest is that you want to associate Bieber with these events and imply that he is guilty by association. You want to editorialise: "Bieber's bus is bad, Khalil is bad, Lil Za is bad, everything around Bieber is bad, ergo Bieber is bad". The same goes with the rest of the events with the neighbours and "making authorities upset": "Bieber makes authorities upset, neighbours upset, ergo Bieber is bad" This is a WP:BLP-violating WP:SYNTHESIS project on a grand scale designed to attack Bieber by painting a synthetic angle using a patchwork of tabloid news fodder some of which is not attributable to Bieber directly. You want to create a feeling of malfeasance about Bieber using a collage of trivia. I suggest you abandon that BLP-violating approach or action may have to be taken so that you can stop targeting Bieber this way. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This may all be caused because Starship.paint is use to writing about wrestling were the whole topic is fake. as seen here the topic its self is fuelled by speculation put out by the community to draw interest. Writing about characters over real people may be where there is a problem. Wrestling survives on guess work and made up associations, but the rest of the world does not work that way. I think Starship.paint does a great job for the kids that are interested in wrestling articles, but needs to understand that associations and things like public polls is not what we consider valid for real bios. The RfC was pretty clear to me that the majority did want to mention the topic of legal problems overall, but they also had reservations on some points as did the closer of the RfC. Need to read what people are saying not just look at there vote. -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair analysis. Thank you Moxy. Staship.paint seems like a capable editor if only he could be guided in the right direction. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• So instead of countering WP:WELLKNOWN, Dr.K. takes a sidestep to claim that it's WP:SYNTHESIS. To counter this, let me say that all the reliable sources of these "previous incidents" that Dr.K. removed were only written when reporting Bieber's first arrest, which means that the reliable sources have made the connection between the previous and current arrests. Several reliable sources listed the multiple incidents Bieber has been involved in since 2011 or 2012, and they even listed more than 12 incidents in 2013 itself. How is it WP:SYNTHESIS if reliable sources can make this connection?
• And oh Moxy, you had to bring up my editorial background in wrestling? The notion that wrestling is based on guesswork is ridiculous. Also, you're again portraying my content as silly kids stuff again, hardly fair to me.
• I'd really like a third party opinion on Dr.K's removals and the current arguments on this topic (that said, I hope Dr.K. will reply to my arguments as well) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: When eight or more other editors do not share your position, you are unlikely to convince others by iterating your same arguments over and over and over and over in interminable walls of text. I suggest you take a step back, have a cup of tea and drop the stick -- right now it is apt to do you far more harm than good to keep this up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• What Collect said. And some more advice: Here we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not a patchwork quilt of guilt by association in which we are going to try to suffocate Bieber's reputation. There is such thing as editorial discretion. Please try to exercise it more often. Also ANI may be a lot of things but it is not an editorial advisory board. Except, of course, if you consider bans or blocks some type of editorial advice. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. It's really not the first time my opponents have ignored my arguments when I've brought up policy to trump them. "Walls of text", they say. Funny how Collect pulls out the number 8 now and previously dismissed all the numbers that were in favour of inclusion of the legal issues in the RfC (12). I simply stand by what many very reliable sources have said about Bieber, which counters your assertions of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTHESIS. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are reaching the point which some might call tendentiousness incarnate. I suggest you note that absolutely no one here is accepting your POV, that the RfC closer did not back you up, and that your use of AN/I for Forumshopping has failed as a hint, but it appears you need a stronger hint. Will someone please oblige starship.paint? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been zero third-party comments since Dr.K. replied. Again, I request a third-party opinion on the subsequent arguments on display; I believe my opponents' have been whittled down to asking for subjective 'editorial discretion'. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Seems to me that Starship.paint is a bit obsessed with this topic and ought to step back a bit, while Collect and Dr.K are wikilawyering. There is a ridiculous amount of sourcing about that petition from every sector, including an academic journal using it to criticize the WH petition process[[115]], legal analysis from as far away as India,[116] Michelle Obama responding with parenting advice,[117] a US congressmember complaining that Bieber will get favorable treatment because of his celebrity and wanting to change US immigration policy,[118] a counterpetition supporting Bieber (opposing his deportation) and calling for equal treatment for other immigrants who get in comparable trouble (opposing deporting them too) [petitions.moveon.org/sign/treat-all-immigrants] (had to un-hotlink due to edit filter) documented by Fox News[119] copycat petitions being started as publicity stunts,[120] etc. There is more than enough sourcing to write a separate article about the petition all by itself. It seems to me ridiculous under WP:NPOV to not mention it in the Bieber article (one could reasonably debate about how much weight to allot it). Could a similar wikilawyering effort at the Bill Clinton article remove the documentation that Clinton was impeached? It undermines our credibility as an encyclopedia that publishes all the relevant info about the article topic if we have an article (as a deletionist I'd rather have far fewer such articles to start with, but Bieber is extremely notable). That all said, the RFC is kind of sprawling and if the petition is the main remaining issue of dispute, maybe it's simplest to open a new RFC focusing on just the petition. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• First you accuse me of wikilawyering then you embark on a lengthy rebuttal centred around the petition issue, even though I have not once referred to the petition. I don't call this informed criticism. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• And can you explain to me how is it wikilawyering to say that what happened to Bieber's tour buses, while he was absent, is gossip unfit to be in Bieber's bio, quote:

• Police in Detroit and Stockholm each raided Bieber's tour buses in 2013 while Bieber was not present. They found marijuana in Detroit, and unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in Stockholm.

• Can you also explain to me how is it wikilawyering to state that what happened to Lil Za is irrelevant to Bieber's bio, quote:

• Nine days before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for cocaine possession.

• Can you also explain to me how is it wikilawyering to state that what happened to Khalil is irrelevant to Bieber's bio, quote:

• R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber.

• In my eyes these edits are a transparent attempt to attack Bieber by implication using a web of unfair WP:WEASELWORD insinuations. Do you think this is any way to write the bio of a living person? Or do you think this is wikilawyering? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• You've got the order in reverse. A lot hinges on the Khalil point, which is not an attempt to 'attack' Bieber, but simply a fact of the case... was Bieber arrested (DUI of drugs) alone or along with other people? Then you have an NBC News report that nine days after Bieber and Khalil's arrest, Bieber and his friends/entourage were smoking a lot of marijuana on a plane.
• Under WP:WELLKNOWN we can include content by reliable sources if they are relevant and notable. Based on the future history of Bieber and his friends being arrested as above, the past history becomes relevant. Notable because Lil Za was arrested on drug charges, Bieber's tour buses raided twice on different continents, drugs found. There is no WP:SYNTHESIS here because reliable sources like Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, BBC News, CTV News and Times of India have reported these past and 'future' incidents together. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly as you mentioned above: Under WP:WELLKNOWN we can include content by reliable sources if they are relevant and notable. Yes, we can include facts if they are relevant and notable. Except in this case they are irrelevant to Bieber. Bieber has nothing to do whatsoever with Lil Za's drug possession, Khalil's arrest or with the fact that drugs were found on his bus. These were not Bieber's drugs. Or nobody alleged they were. Therefore they are irrelevant to Bieber. He was not arrested for them and no one accused him of carrying them into the bus. They are irrelevant to Bieber and have no place in his biography. And your comment: Based on the future history of Bieber and his friends being arrested as above, the past history becomes relevant., is still not true. That's still Bieber's biography and details about his friends do not belong in his biography because they are irrelevant to his biography. That's where your WP:SYNTH comes in. You want to convert Bieber's bio into the synthetic article "The sordid history of Bieber, his friends and the bus incidents". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• We are never going to agree on Based on the future history of Bieber and his friends being arrested as above, the past history becomes relevant. From WP:SYNTH, in this case the reliable sources are saying A and B in the same article. If they were so irrelevant why did many reliable sources report past history in current incidents? Let's just leave it at that.
• Also, you're neglecting to mention on the other previous incidents directly involving Bieber which you removed as well. Relevancy is definitely not an issue here. Multiple instances of neighbours accusing Bieber of dangerous driving. Bieber's graffiti upsetting authorities in Australia and Colombia. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• You wrote:

  ...and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities.

• Well, as it turns out I checked the references and ctv news supports the "upset authorities in Colombia" bit but not "Australia". There is no mention in any source that the Australian authorities were upset. In fact the BBC citation mentions:

  The hotel, QT Gold Coast, said in a response to a comment on its Facebook page: "We are stoked to have Justin Bieber's artwork on our wall." It added that it had given Bieber permission to paint on the wall.

• So not only your edit about "upsetting authorities" is vague, trivial and unencyclopedic, but you added things which did not exist in the citations and also you failed to mention that the hotel in Australia approved of the graffiti and had given permission to Bieber to do it. That completely invalidates any culpability on Bieber's part but your edit makes it appear as if he had run afoul of the law because of his graffiti in Australia which is simply not the case, quite the opposite, since he was encouraged to do it by the property owners of the place. Your edit fails both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Colombia bit said "upset authorities". Since Bieber wasn't charged but the Australian authorities did respond negatively, I wrote that he upset the Australian authorities too to summarise, which seems like an adequate summary when you consider that BBC wrote:

  Gold Coast City Council said it would order the graffiti's removal ... Council said that while the graffiti was on a private property, it was in public view and an eyesore ... "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti" ... Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate described Bieber's behaviour as "really silly".

• After all, everyone's been calling on me to summarise, summarise, summarise the past issues of Bieber, no need for so much detail, so that's what I did. If you feel it's an inadequate summary then fine, we can have another reliable source by Huffington Post that says in the title Justin Bieber angers Australian mayor with his graffiti.
• completely invalidates any culpability on Bieber's part - so Bieber is not to blame at all?See BBC source: "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti", so what if the hotel approves? The city's approach still stands. I didn't add the hotel approval part, but I won't stop anyone from mentioning it as long as the Australian authorities' response is included.
• Therefore, while the following sentence is clunky, it should satisfy Dr.K's intepretation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV: Bieber's graffiti also upset Colombian authorities and angered an Australian mayor despite the Australian hotel approving it. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• As I mentioned earlier, this is a trivial incident which does not deserve to be in the article. Even your present formulation is inadequate. Acording to the BBC:

  Earlier, Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate described Bieber's behaviour as "really silly". "Just come and clean it up and we'll be happy with you. Alternatively come and sing at our mayoral Christmas carols on 7 December for an hour and I'll let you go."

• The mayor was not really angry, he was just playing politics. By the time this trivial incident gets explained properly, it is way past its WP:UNDUEWEIGHT quota for the article. And in any case, since the hotel gave Bieber permission to paint the graffiti, Bieber is completely exonerated from any responsibility, so by mentioning the anger of the mayor we imply Bieber was somehow culpable although he was not. Then we go to what "making authorities upset" really means, which I analysed just above and I think it is meaningless newspeak for tabloid fodder, completely unfit to be in a serious BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• As far as your coment: "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti", so what if the hotel approves? The city's approach still stands. No, it does not. You assume Bieber knew about the Australian city bylaws but Bieber is not an expert on international municipal law. And then, how was Bieber expected to know that the "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti"? Who is he? An Australian city-hall insider? The hotel gave permission to Bieber to paint, Bieber painted. End of story. Bieber had no idea that the city council would go after him post facto. He has no responsibility whatsoever. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The mayor "not really angry... just playing politics" is your interpretation. The Huffington Post reliable source says that he angered the mayor, which is the crux of it; it was definitely a negative response. Almost everybody isn't an (edit conflict) international lawyer expert on international municipal law - does that mean they are exempt from obeying municipal law in countries they are visiting? The hotel is culpable as well, but Bieber isn't exempt. Ignorance or "they told me to do it" is hardly a good answer to disobeying the authorities. If he were really that blameless, this would not have been covered beyond TMZ or Daily Mail. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay Dr.K, we probably reached the point of ultimate disagree-ability again, for the sake of completeness, how about you argue your reasons for removal of the final point: multiple previous incidents (N) of neighbours accusing Bieber of dangerous driving, given that he was arrested for dangerous driving (DUI) later on (R). WP:WELLKNOWN asks for relevance (R) and notability (N), which I believe it thus satisfies. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the stuff you attempted to add to the article and which I removed:

Bieber's neighbours in [[Calabasas]] have accused and confronted Bieber about his [[reckless driving]] and [[Speed limit#Excessive speed|speeding]] in the neighbourhood.<ref name=APImage/><ref name=BBCFirstArrest/><ref name=ABCtroubles>{{cite web|last=Fisher|first=Luchina|title=Justin Bieber Arrested for DUI: Inside His Past Troubles - Bieber's Showdown With Keyshawn Johnson|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/justin-bieber-arrested-dui-rough-year-continues/story?id=19366534#5|publisher=[[ABC News]]|accessdate=January 25, 2014|archivedate=March 19, 2014|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OBBwA6kO}}</ref> Police in [[Detroit]] and [[Stockholm]] each raided Bieber's tour buses in 2013 while Bieber was not present. They found [[marijuana]] in Detroit, and unspecified [[narcotic]]s and a [[Electroshock weapon|stun gun]] in Stockholm.<ref name=CTVtimeline/><ref name=TOIsurprised>{{cite web|last=Bandyopadhyay|first=Bohni|title=Justin Bieber busted: Are you surprised?|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/hollywood/news-interviews/Justin-Bieber-busted-Are-you-surprised/articleshow/29310019.cms?curpg=2|publisher=The Times of India|accessdate=January 25, 2014|archivedate=March 19, 2014|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OBC0RogB}}</ref> Nine days before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for [[cocaine]] possession.<ref name=APImage/><ref name=LAtimesCulm/><ref name=BBCdisgracefully>{{cite web|title=Justin Bieber - Growing up disgracefully|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25860563|publisher=[[BBC News]]|accessdate=January 25, 2014|archivedate=March 19, 2014|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OBC4KPXL}}</ref>

The sources may look reliable at first, but they are their entertainment sections and are sensationalist in nature, similar to tabloids. Check their sensationalist headlines:

Justin Bieber busted: Are you surprised? [Times of India entertainment section]

Justin Bieber Arrested for DUI: Inside His Past Troubles - Bieber's Showdown With Keyshawn Johnson [ABC news entertainment section]

Justin Bieber - Growing up disgracefully [BBC news entertainment section]

Do these headlines look sober, reliable and encyclopaedic to you? I think you are mining the sensationalist entertainment sections of online media to scrape any sensationalist tidbit of information that you can find about Bieber. This is no way to build an encyclopaedia.

Then you have problems of transcription. In your edit you make it appear as if Bieber's "reckless driving" is a fact. You wrote:

Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.

But the source qualifies the speeding by using the terms "alleged" and "allegedly":

Police were ultimately called and now the district attorney's office is investigating Bieber for a second case of alleged reckless driving... Then, at the end of May, Keyshawn Johnson confronted Bieber for allegedly speeding through the neighborhood while the former NFL star's kids were playing outside. "You got a 19-year old kid feeling entitled," Johnson told TMZ about why he later chased down the singer at his home to discuss the incident with him.

Did you see also the reference to TMZ? Now we have the sensationalist entertainment section of abc news recycling tabloid information from TMZ. So you want to add recycled gossip from tabloids about Bieber's confrontation with his neighbours over an alleged infraction while at the same time you do not edit in a careful fashion when you add these allegations into the BLP thus making it appear as if the allegations are facts. This is no way to build an encyclopedic BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So now I'm "mining the sensationalist entertainment sections of online media to scrape any sensationalist tidbit of information"... eh, nope, I just googled, saw a BBC source, a ABC source and a Times of India source so I added the information. Frankly, do you really expect Bieber to appear outside the Entertainment sections? That's exactly where he belongs, even in articles about his music.

The word "accused" is already present and it is quite similar to "alleged". If you have a problem with me not using "allegedly", by all means, include the word "allegedly" - accused and confronted Bieber about his alleged reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.

I found the TMZ source you mentioned. It has a video of Johnston accusing Bieber. It should be thus treated as a primary source, instead of an unreliable one. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The word "accused" is already present and it is quite similar to "alleged". Not if it includes the possessive "his": "Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.". The syntax should have been "accused him of reckless driving". If it is "alleged" it is not "his" and it is a BLP violation to express it that way. In any case spats with neighbours about alleged infractions are not serious BLP material especially if gleaned from tabloid journalism with headlines like "Bieber busted: Are you surprised?" dripping with prejudicial sarcasm, or headlines such as "Growing up disgracefully" which are full of undue and insulting negativity or sensationalism such as "Showdown" etc. Such tabloid-level references are not the objective, sober, serious sources, which are expected to be used in a serious BLP, utilising careful and objective analysis of the facts, especially if we have to include negative material about the BLP subject. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Might I add that you happened to leave out the ? at the end at "Justin Bieber: growing up disgracefully?" You can argue that the sources were kinda sensationalist, but firstly, that is to be expected from articles about Bieber, and secondly, that doesn't detract from the content that neighbours accused Bieber of dangerous driving. Neither does it detract from the fact that Bieber was later arrested for dangerous driving.

If you have a problem with my phrasing, I am very willing to discuss so that it does not violate BLP. We can work together, instead of against each other.

The key thing to note that while you have produced better arguments now than anyone who has argued against my content before, the question is... why did it take you over two months to do so, because I have been trying to implement such content since late January, and you've been present all this time. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your comment: Might I add that you happened to leave out the ? at the end at "Justin Bieber: growing up disgracefully? I just copied it as it was found in the inline reference; it didn't have the question mark. As far as why I chose to discuss this now, rather than more extensively during the past few months, there are several reasons. One reason was that I thought the problem would resolve itself through community involvement. The other was that I just couldn't bring myself to discuss this round after round due to the amount of text being produced. But I will leave it at that. The last one is ANI, but by accident. I was never expecting this to turn into a content discussion but when it did I got caught in it. Regardless, thank you for your kind words. I also think, as I have said before, that you are a capable editor, irrespective of our disgreements. And since you are an essentially civil editor I wouldn't mind discussing these issues with you in the future. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear though, I still stand by my views, my arguments and the content I have added, where I am willing to budge is how the content is phrased. Also, it seems to me that your last two sentences doesn't really match with your support of a six-month ban for me in all BLPs. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No need for disclaimers about your views; I didn't think that you would change them. As far as my !vote, it is a rather strange conundrum. On one hand I see you as an earnest and intelligent editor, on the other, there is evidence of a problematic approach concerning Bieber's BLP and additional evidence of problems concerning opening this ANI which has proven a massive time-sink. I don't want to continue this criticism so I'll stop here. My initial comments actually supported a limited ban: I think that I would be prepared to support a ban from Bieber's bio. I think he needs to take a break from that bio. This ban could be extended if similar behaviour arises in other bios. This is why ANI is such a terrible place for discussion, as I said just above. Often times the discussion turns in the direction of blocks or bans, which is not an exact science, to say the least. If I had to take a guess I would hope that you may be less argumentative defending this material. I'll change my !vote based on that hope. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban proposal

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.

---

For User:Starship.paint for tendentious editing of BLPs and refusal to understand the significance and need for WP:BLP This is done only after the interminable postings above wherein the problem is laid quite bare for all to see. Topic ban to encompass all biographies of living persons, broadly construed, for a period of six months or as determined by consensus below. Collect (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so apparently I should be banned from all BLPs for six months because I am adding (mostly) negative content to one BLP, discounting all my other contributions to other BLPs (the wrestlers? Natalia?) My edits for Bieber abide by WP:WELLKNOWN, a sub-policy of WP:BLP for public figures. Unable to counter my policy-based arguments and counter-arguments, you have resorted to this. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No -- but you seem to accuse anyone who points out the requirements of WP:BLP or acting in bad faith and collusion, and iterate your claims often and frequently and repeatedly at various venues, and open a clear forumshopping exercise on this noticeboard. I suggest you see how many will note your stridency here and on the talk pages of the BLPs you have been active on, and add two plus two. The aim is to make you aware of the policy and to abide by it, not to banish you, and hopefully you will find other areas to edit in constructively and without making accusations about every editor who demurs with your stated positions. Cheers and Godspeed. Collect (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

stridency here and on the talk pages of the BLPs you have been active on - have you even seen any of my contributions on any other BLP? And where exactly have I accused anyone of editing in bad faith? I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but I don't agree with your methods. You clearly want to protect BLP articles, but I think you're over-protecting by removing reliably sourced negative content. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Given staship.paint's long and multifaceted campaign to add irrelevant facts into Bieber's bio and his continuing defence of his actions which show insufficient understanding of WP:BLP and specifically WP:WELLKNOWN, a fact that could cause harm to Bieber's bio, I think that I would be prepared to support a ban from Bieber's bio. I think he needs to take a break from that bio. This ban could be extended if similar behaviour arises in other bios. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The legal issues in particular (which Dr.K. removed) were supported by a majority of RfC voters (12/17); I am merely the most outspoken. So all 12 of us don't understand WP:BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN, which warrants a ban?. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban It's reasonable that people have trouble understanding why they can't use space-fillers and excited commentary to garnish a BLP with reports of an audience booing the subject (diff), or posting waffle about a petition (quoting the essentially self-published opinion of the petition regarding "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations youth") (diff). However, after all the explanations that have been given, the only thing left is a topic ban. I will add a brief extra explanation about BLP—controversial people attract a lot of pro/con commentary, and it is not satisfactory for editors to cherry-pick choice bits for display in an encyclopedic article about the subject of a biographical article (which should focus on the big picture). If a secondary source ever comments about how the subject's career took a nose dive because an audience booed them, then the event may have some long-term significance that warrants its insertion in the article. Until then, it's just cherry-picked gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody discussed the booing, which was not inserted into the "career" section, but the "image" section. The significance is that he was booed by his own countrymen, ironically while receiving a Fan's Choice award, which reflects on his public image. That significance has been picked up by many news sources such as BBC. Look at this commentary piece by TIME. Bieber’s superstardom has taken a hit in both the U.S. and Canada over recent months - it's clear that Justin Bieber's image and reputation in Canada and America (the petition to deport Bieber was the second-most supported ever, the poll with more than 50% negative opinion) is going down. The problem is that those in favour of protecting the article as a BLP is indirectly causing censorship because all these incidents (booing / poll / petition) are apparently too trivial, despite coverage of many reliable sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Per Collect, Johnuniq and per my comments regarding the editing methods of this editor. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Clarification: After discussion, I would prefer some type of restriction or even advice limited to Bieber's BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban but only to Justin Bieber articles - A BLP bans is veery extreme as his edit to wrestling articles looks fine to me - yes lots of the wrestling edits are news based gossip, but this is how wrestling is trying to survive - making its own controversies. I think I should speak up as a total BLP ban would not help the community at large and this is the way things are going. YES a Justin Bieber articles ban is ok ....after all the time spent trying to insert the negative news about third part affiliations and this new addition I am inclined to believe that there is some personal hatred of Justin Bieber. Also after thinking for a bit on the recent edits - fighting to keep mention of a poll by only 571 people over 2 days as if it represents the American point of view as a whole aslo leads me to believe the same thing. Context is every thing and this is not being represent well at all. No one should edit topics they have strong POV's for. -- Moxy (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am really rather insulted by your comments on professional wrestling. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with adding negative content to BLPs, especially when I do my absolute best to only use reliable secondary sources for the negative content. Personally, I don't hate Bieber, but I do feel that he's not a good role model.

IMO we should provide both positive and negative content in articles and let readers judge for themselves. For the poll, you can balance the negative content (that more than half of the Americans polled thought negatively of Bieber) with the countering "positive" content (only 571 people polled). Instead you want to totally remove the content, just as how you want to remove me from editing the article. You fail to recognize the significance of the content, which many reliable sources have. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what your upset about - as I said you do a good job with those articles - its not your fault its a dramatized athletic spectacle that survives on made-up grudges and personalities. As for the poll there are many out there some positive some negative but we dont list them - why - because a small amount of people dont represent a total population. -- Moxy (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you're upsetting CM Punk. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose topic ban Oh give me a break, this is way too drastic. Gloss • talk 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban Yep, quite ridiculous. You do not request any type of ban or block just in order to win an argument. Starship.paint definitely does not have a problem with editing BLPs and his side is also the side that had the most support during the RfC, so it is not like he is disruptively going against the result of the RfC... like some users. STATic message me! 03:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban I've known Starship to lend a good hand. His work on wrestling related articles, included BLPs, has always been regarded as productive. We can all lose our head at times when things get heated but this seems to be an isolated incident. A topic ban seems like a draconian action... Such measures should be taken to protect the encyclopedia and are not to be punitive. Starship's edits to BLPs are, in most cases, constructive. A topic ban wouldn't protect the encyclopedia, it would do the opposite.LM2000 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose general BLP ban. He does good work elsewhere. Support backing away from the Beeb for a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is silly. We only have one instance of having problems on one BLP, and you propose a ban on editing all BLPs? This problem is specific to one article, and it has not been demonstrated that this is a problem for the editor on all BLP articles. If you do want to propose something, keep is specific and relevant to the topic of Justin Bieber. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too harsh. If he just adds latest news/gossips, I'm sure it's in good faith. I met him at Natalia Poklonskaya article, and he questioned the reliability of sources, removed unsourced info, fought vandalism, and now we are discussing how to make the article tell everything how it really happened cause many reliable sources had everything mixed up. So I see him wanting everything to be as close to the truth as possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - quite frankly, I'm with starship through and through on this. He had a consensus and ran with it, the editors who lost in the RfC continued to edit war. Now granted, I didn't read the entire two discussions, but based on what I did read, just drop the stick and move on. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 18:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems a disproportionate response to issues pertaining to a single article. McPhail (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• oppose broad blp ban as not enough evidence to support something that drastic. neutral for Bieber ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Disproportionate and foolish. Clearly too broad considering every other bit of BLP work he does. Sounds retaliatory for being on the loosing end of an RFC. oknazevad (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - anyone can go ahead and check my history of blocks and warnings. I'm afraid I haven't done much rule-breaking over here... since my first month? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:24, 5 April 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:IPadPerson tagging articles for problems that do not exist

A while ago I began to notice IPadPerson (talk · contribs) tagging articles for problems that don't exist. For example: BLP Sources on an article with 113 sources at the time, [121], [122]. I left them a talk page note here, March 10th.

After that note, it continued: Lead too short on an article with no other information besides the one-line lead, [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135].

I asked them once again to knock it off (here, March 23) and like many other attempts at contacting them, they ignored the message and continued on: [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141].

IPadPerson has had many incivility problems in the past, surrounded by issues of failing to respond to any user outside of one or two occasions (including when they were blocked for their incivility and requested an immediate unblock, all of a sudden having a ton to say). So it comes as no surprise to me that they've ignored my first two warnings. But this behavior of tagging articles for problems that aren't obvious or don't exist isn't beneficial to the project whatsoever. Gloss • talk 17:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like textbook drive-by tagging, which I agree can be annoying. Connormah (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

While IPadPerson seems to have improved on civility, the tags placed don't seem to have been given much thought. Is it just me, or did the block perhaps prompt responses to other users on talk page? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Side comment: Most tagging is drive-by tagging in the sense that it is the height of laziness on the part of the editor leaving a tag. If there is a problem they have noticed, they should take action to FIX or at least IDENTIFY the problem. Most tags do not articulate what the problem is, and the tags are left as a substitute for actual work that can help solve the problem. Note: the worst offenders are some of the highest edit count "leaders" of wikipedia--the ones who make multiple edits per minute and have no time to actually consider what they are doing with their edits. Really, a tag is a one-person complaint about an article, sometimes on articles that have thousands of views (meaning none of their predecessors have seen fit to change anything about the article). Furthermore, the public, header level announcement that there is a problem with this article, cumulatively serves to harm the overall look of credibility of Wikipedia. I equate tagging to vandalism on my talk page.

Often, after a tag has been left on an article, other editors use it as an excuse to remove legitimate, valuable content, doing greater damage to Wikipedia's archive of knowledge.

So in regard to this editor, yes their edits are junk, but virtually all taggers leave junk. The entire concept should be scrapped. Trackinfo (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As much as I don't think the tags IPadPerson placed were needed, it doesn't seem appropriate to call someone's edits "junk". Regarding "laziness", I can see how tagging articles can be seen as lazy, but sometimes they are done when the user doesn't in that moment have the time to fix the issue himself/herself. For example, placing a "needs additional citations" tag can help while the editor searches for sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

To further show the user's unwillingness to cooperate, or even discuss... they've removed my previous warnings and the ANI notice (see here) Gloss • talk 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

While removing a message from one's own talk page is technically a sign indicating the user acknowledges it, in IPadPerson's case it would've been much more beneficial to at least reply first. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The least that IPadPerson can do is recognize that there is a problem with their edits. Epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if more of a "I don't understand what my faults are" or a "I don't have any faults- you're just making this up" case..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

More like the latter. I randomly chose (no, just kidding). Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Any more opinions would be helpful. I honestly think this user will not respond with another warning and the only way to get the message across to them is to issue a block. Gloss • talk 16:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Any admins for a punitive-only block that might or might not help? Honestly, it looks like one of the few options from here. Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Gloss • talk 02:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And on another note: [142].. Gloss • talk 00:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely seems like a case of going against WP:COOL. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

1241edit

I think we have some issues with 1241edit, and to put it simply :

• WP:Sock puppetry : a second account, Ss1241, was discovered on the French Wikipedia this morning, and thus banned. Do you need a RCU here as well, or is the result on FR enough ?
• WP:No personal attacks : this second account has been used this morning to give me a "Warnning for Vandalism". Needless to say that "Vandalism" is not exactly what I have done. The main account is currently blocked on FR for the same kind of misbehaving.

From what I can see, he or she has had multiple warnings here, but also on Wikicommons. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What a user does on another wiki is outside the remit of the English wiki, so a banned user on the French Wiki will not be banned on the English wiki unless they have violated the policies here. Each wiki is self contained with its own independent policies. You would have to go to Metawiki to have their account globally locked but that would be a whole new level of policy violation. Blackmane (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I mean, do you need a new RCU to prove that 1241edit = Ss1241 or not ? As far as I know, if you have multiple accounts, you have to declare them, not use one of them to insult an other contributor when you want to. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you believe they're violating WP:SOCK#LEGIT on the English Wikipedia, you can open an WP:SPI DP 19:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that using a sockpuppet to issue fake "Warnning for Vandalism" could fall under the scope of Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT ? I don't need to prove that those accounts belong to the same person, (in French)it has been proven already, so I'm not going to waste check users' time.

Just take one minute to read all the warnings that he/she has received already. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's not whether it's the same person, it's whether they are using two accounts legitimately. Follow the link you were provided with. Panda, an SPI won't be necessary here, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. I warned both that only one account should be used. I left a warning for incorrectly warning for vandalism. That's it, for now. And now we clean up the directory entry called Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University (University of Paris 6). Drmies (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that you should also keep an eye on this new account, Azadsp : contributing on the same article here, and uploading the same kind of non-free images on Commons. All those images have been used on FA, and those accounts bave been contributing to the same article there. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Right, that's enough. I'm blocking them all, indefinitely, for spamming, edit-warring, disrupting, uploading likely copyvios, and socking. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

OMG hot girl style vandalism--range block requested

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

---

Range blockers, please see what you can do about 198.228.220.192 and 198.228.220.75, and when you're done, feel free to unprotect ANI, which I semi-locked for the while. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• That is kind of a big range, /16, but I blocked a smaller subset, 198.228.220.1/24 for 31 hours and unprotected. We will see if that helps. If not, maybe have to jump to a /20 or so. I've never done a /16, which is the largest that they will trust to admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of a conversation about size I once witnessed involving a Belgian artist and some American actors, only it was about cock rings. His ring was HUGE. Thanks Dennis. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Few people are able to successfully create an analogy comparing IP subnets to jewelry for the penis, but once again, you've managed to link the unlinkable. It is a talent, I suppose ;). You're welcome. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm glad to see that April Fools Day is over, and we've returned to the level of seriousness commensurate with a project of this kind of co[s]mic importance. BMK (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Are those available as an alternative to the wiki t-shirt? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 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.

Banning of this IP Address

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.

---

So this IP address that I am using is at my school. I'm requesting that the IP be banned either permanantly or for a long time so that the students at the school (other than myself) are not distracted by vandalizing random pages, as they seem to have already done at least once.

216.56.8.68 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

IP address has made one previous edit, which was reverted as vandalism and a warning issued. Odd that the OP's first edit is to AN/I, which isn't something most new users come to that fast. In any case, vandalism reports are best made at WP:AIV - if there is further vandalism from this IP address it should be reported there. Euryalus (talk) 20:15, 2 April 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.

Regardless of one's opinion on the WMF's lolnoing calls for SITE, allowing IP editing is not "encouraging vandalism". Period. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just as an explanation to the original poster... Wikipedia actually encourages trivial vandalism from school addresses, in the hope that after realising their supposedly "amusing" vandalism will not stay, a small proportion of more thoughtful students might edit Wikipedia in more useful ways. So, a few vandalism edits over a year or two - or even a month or two - is no problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Could you point to a policy which says that we encourage trivial vandalism from school addresses? I'd like to send all the trivial school vandalism I handle to the author of that policy for their ajudication. BMK (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC) @Demiurge1000: April 1st was yesterday, and even then it's not appropriate to give this advice to an IP. Vandalism is discouraged, period. -- Atama頭 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC) I doubt the IP in question is here to read anything I might write. There's a reason we don't semi-protect most articles. We do also discourage vandalism - on average - yes. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what I said. Carry on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC) @Demiurge1000: I think you mean don't bite the newbies. Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Nothing in WP:DONTBITE "encourages trivial vandalism from school addresses" which is the claim made by Demiurge1000, no misunderstanding about it, I'm afraid. I take it by their reply here without a pointer to any policy that there is, in fact, no policy whatsoever that encourages school vandalism, so I suggest to D1000 not to misrepresent Wikipedia policy, especially to easily-influenced newbies. Your comment here was unhelpful. BMK (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC) On the contrary, it wasn't destructive. WP:SAND is the right way to point them if they've only made one edit that looks like it's a test (not vandalism). Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Uncivility by 24.44.93.50

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 24.44.93.50 made an edit to pawnless chess endgames that to me seemed like his own original research (in fact two attempts). I reverted it and gave a level 1 warning on his talk page, explaining it. He left a nasty message on my talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a little premature to bring this here. Warn the user with that {{subst:uw-npa}} (and/or {{subst:uw-unsor1}}) templates, and report if either behaviors persist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

General approach would be to simply remove the rant from your (Bubba73's) talk page rather than request assistance here at ANI ... an editor whose fifth edit ever is that aggressive is unlikely to be converted into a collaborative editor. Best to revert and ignore and only worry about requesting a block if the editor persists. NE Ent 22:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for giving him the NPA warning. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:02, 2 April 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.

Fort hood

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.

---

Admin / editor eyes on 2014 Fort Hood shooting would be appreciated. NE Ent 00:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ent; Tassedthe beat me to the semi-protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 3 April 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.

Wikibreak.

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

---

I am feeling a bit burned out. I'll be back in a week or so. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Does that require the intervention of administrators? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Block him for a week to make sure he gets back well rested. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:26, 3 April 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.

Page Ban Proposal For User "Earl King Jr."

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

---

Hello, I signed up after seeing the "talk" on The Zeitgeist Movement page, absolutely shocked at what I was reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement

"Zeitgeist really is a fringe group cult and that is why the usual media does not bring it up much, its just not taken seriously except by the zealots that believe in it. As you may know it has been called the worlds first large based internet cult. Mostly that is about the only serious internet commentary on it that is easy to find. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement

This does not sound like someone interested in maintaining NPOV and I do not think they should be allowed to edit a page they hold such vehement emotions towards. I also recommend experienced editors review the page for NPOV. I apologize if something is wrong with my post, as I said, I'm very new to Wikipedia editing and just wanted to bring this to the community's attention. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andytark (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have any examples of the editor making POV edits to the article, as opposed to expressing their personal opinion on the article's talk page? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. BMK (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting... Flowersforparis has been blocked for editing in this subject, and for sockpuppetry, and you, in your very first two edits find your way to AN/I and manage to post a pointer to it on Earl King Jr.'s talk page. An amazing coincidence. BMK (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume that is FlowersForParis in another incarnation. His prose style of writing is nearly identical and he has a history of mixing it up negatively on related articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it is time to file an SPI with diffs to substantiate up your assumption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that shortly after being blocked, FlowersForParis posted as an IP on Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement to make a very similar complaint to the one made by the 'new' contributor here. [143] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious sock. It's striking how this "very new" user knows about things like page bans, about this noticeboard, even down to the culturally correct ANI phrasing ("recommend experienced editors review the page", "bring this to the community's attention"), and even about alphabet soup like NPOV. It's a sock. I'm not familiar enough with Flowersforparis's prose style to say that Andytark is with 100% certainty their sock, though the amazing coincidences, as BMK puts it, suggest it, as does AndyTheGrump's link. Liz, note the SPI instructions for administrators here: "In many cases, sock puppetry can be determined just by behavioral evidence and without the need for technical evidence. Many admins normally apply what is colloquially called the duck test – if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." It's a duck. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

I understand WP:DUCK, Bishonen, it just seems like it is applied differently depending on who the admin is. Sometimes evidence is required while other admins will act on an accusation alone. I'm not singling anyone out, it just seems like sometimes the bar is set extremely low for identifying socks based on a few edits that appear to be suspicious. I think some editors think "probably is=is" when that's not always the case. I don't know whether or not Andytark is a sock (he might have previously edited as an IP, for example), I just have issues with how this policy is applied. But this is just a response to your comment, I realize that this case is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it's simply blatantly obvious when you know how a certain editor behaves, but it's wiser not to explain how. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 3 April 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.

Why are open proxies able to edit Wikipedia?

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

---

According to User talk:137.132.250.12, this is an open proxy. However, this IP can still edit. Per WP:PROXY, use of open proxies is banned with no room for negotiation, and users who rely on open proxies to access the internet from behind restrictive governments are required to create an account and apply for ip-block-exempt. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• whatismyaddress confirms that this IP is presently a proxy server. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Because a proxy can be created or destroyed at any time and there is no way to know other than to constantly test every IPv4 and IPv6 address one at a time to discover them and it's a process that is slow even for bots?--v/r - TP 07:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The link says it is a "confirmed proxy" ie "the public IP address of a proxy server" but not a open proxy, that "can be used by anyone". Maybe they got their act together since 2009. IT departments are slow, but 5 years should be enaugh to patch blatant security holes. Agathoclea (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Where in WP:PROXY is "the use of open proxies banned with no room for negotiation?" Yes, that is the usual result, but it is because of abuse. If somehow magically an open proxy only contributed good edits, I see no policy that would require blocking it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• You have look beyond the surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Open_or_anonymous_proxies and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Some constructive Wikipedia editors are forced by circumstance to use open proxies. Such proxies may be "blocked on sight" but only if there is abuse. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a few points here from one of the more active contributors to WP:OP.

• whatismyipaddress.com is full of... it. I can't recall how many alleged proxies that they have confirmed that clearly aren't proxies.
• Generally, we don't actively seek out web proxies, except ones known for repeated abuse (newipnow.com would be one such example). If found, they are usually blocked, though. Usually they are found through someone abusing it.
• Transparent proxies are generally blocked automatically by ProcseeBot (talk · contribs) (though it doesn't catch all of them).
• Wikipedia editors who need to edit through proxies may be given the ip block exemption, but the existence of such editors is not generally seen as an excuse for leaving proxies unblocked if discovered.
• Many open proxies are blocked globally at meta.

Now in this particular case,the IP is a web-caching proxy for the National University of Singapore. It is not currently an open proxy, though it was several years ago. Blocking it would probably block many potentially productive editors at that university, and therefore shouldn't be done unless it becomes open again. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

M:NOP has the global proxy policy, which is basically what I was summarizing above. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So if someone wants to edit through an open proxy from a geolocation where emails are intercepted by a repressive government and edits can very quickly become unhealthy, let me get this straight, they can send an *EMAIL* to the wikipedia linking their user name with their IP? Thanks, but no thanks. An open proxy can be used for disruption, sure, but so can an IP or a logged-in user. That should be the sole criteria. Users do not usually have control over their institution's proxies. —Neotarf (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed proxies and VPN's are still allowed. If you want to debate the proxy policy, take it up with meta. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:56, 4 April 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.

151.66.113.53

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.

---

151.66.113.53 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly deleting sourced material without explanation from the article, Rolf Furuli.

• [144]
• [145]
• [146]
• [147]
• [148]
• [149]

There is another edit by 151.66.40.171 (talk · contribs) which is evidently the same individual.

• [150]

He has been warned repeatedly at his User Talk page by me[151], User:Flyer22[152] and User:Donner60[153].

Since it is evident that the user is on a dynamic IP, it may be necessary to temporarily range block 151.66.x.x.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

it looks to me there is method in the madness. While 151 seems not to understand the finer points of wikipolicy, it looks like he tries to fix what he thinks is a deliberate and undue attempt to discredit Rolf Furuli. That brings it into the realms of BLP. Agathoclea (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not a violation of BLP policies for an article to report that the subject of the article is a proponent of a fringe view. In any case, the editor has made no case to discuss the article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

He has deleted material from the article a further two times after this complaint was lodged, still with no explanation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually counted 21 reverts of the same material from April 1-3. I reported them at WP:ANEW and they were reported for vandalism and so are blocked for 3 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 4 April 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.

WT:Article titles uninvolved admin assistance needed

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 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Tweak to recognizability criterion about whether a recent discussion established consensus to change the policy. Since this topic is under discretionary sanctions, it would be good if an uninvolved admin could chime in and settle this. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Commented there. Dpmuk (talk) 18:00, 3 April 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.

Glpuk (talk · contribs): self-promotion, shared account, advertising

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

---

This user is operating a shared account (representing a company); their user page contains self-promoting material for said business; and their latest edit (for which I talked to them, before realising the greater rule violation) inserted advertising material into a good article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Already handled by Orangemike--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 3 April 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.

Help help

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

---

I just noticed that the "Help" link under "interaction" in the left sidebar, which used to take readers to Help:Contents, has suddenly begun taking them to this MediaWiki page. I'm sure someone made this change intentionally, but it seems to me a disimprovement (no links to the Help desk or the Teahouse there, for one thing). Since changing the sidebar must require (at least) admin privileges, I figured this would be an appropriate place to bring the matter up. Does this appear to be a useful change? Deor (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Sidebar_.22Help.22_link_broken. Bovlb (talk) 21:46, 3 April 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:Douglas Cotton

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.

---

Douglas Cotton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor's actions make it appear that they represent a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. From their user page being an ad for their self-published book, to edits such as this and this and this, to their short-lived DRN and Arbitration requests, it is clear that they are only editing as part of as they say, a "publicity campaign" to disprove global warming. Requesting an indefinite topic ban for this user from any original research or POV pushing (broadly construed), in any namespace.

Notified: [154] VQuakr (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:PROMO, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:DISRUPTION and WP:TENDENTIOUS (on article talk pages), ultimately WP:CIR when one considers the editor's inability or unwillingness to understand basic policies like WP:V and WP:RS. There's no possible way that if the editor continues on the same arc he's on right now that the ultimate result won't be an indef block, but a topic ban is, I suppose, worth trying. It needs, however, to include all aspects of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as well as the Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change/Global Warming. BMK (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in delaying the inevitable. support community ban, second choice topic ban. The user basically came here because he's been banned from half the climate blogs, and wants a new forum to discuss his pet theories, which most charitably would be called WP:FRINGE (honestly, they're a bit beyond the fringe – he's been banned from both Skeptical Science and Watts Up With That? which aren't really known for agreeing on much). Not remotely here to build an encyclopedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup. It seems readily apparent that Douglas Cotton has failed to understand a single word regarding WP:PROMO, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTAFORUM, etc, etc, despite multiple attempts to explain what Wikipedia is for, and why he isn't under any circumstances going to be allowed to use it to promote his theories. I cannot imagine that anyone this incapable of understanding elementary policy would be of the slightest use editing on other topics, and see no point whatsoever in delaying the inevitable. Block indefinitely, and be done with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Related:

User talk:Douglas Cotton#Areas of expertise,

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Greenhouse effect,

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Venus.

I agree that Douglas Cotton is WP:NOTHERE and has a severe WP:COMPETENCE problem. I do not agree that an indefinite block is the solution. There is no reason why the usual method of applying blocks with escalating duration should not be applied here. The only downside is a little more work. The upside is that, when the inevitable "Wikipedia is oppressing me" webpage is created, we will be able to say with a clear conscience that we gave him several warnings and several chances to stop being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is yet another site where he has been pushing his so-called theories. According to this thread he has been making use of sockpuppets on their forum to promote his ideas and has subsequently been banned and a filter put in place to deal with him. I had a look at a recent Watts Up With That? thread and it's apparent that what we're dealing with here is not just your run of the mill fringe theory pusher. He's very determined and I expect that there will be sockpuppets on the horizon. WP is one of the highest, if not the highest, profile sites and will largely come up number 1 on Google. I highly doubt a topic ban will deter him. I know that off-wiki evidence is unusual but this might need to be an IAR exception. Blackmane (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that off-topic evidence is really necessary - it is absolutely clear that Douglas Cotton's only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote his theories, and it is likewise clear that he is incapable of complying with our policies. As for using 'escalating blocks' providing a 'clear conscience' for us, I have to say that I fail to see the logic of this. If we know what the end result is going to be, all such blocks will achieve is more disruption, while giving Cotton false hope that he might be allowed to continue with his promotional activities. Ultimately, it isn't doing him any favours at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Consider the case, as often happens, where someone who is blocked starts making a lot of noise about it off-wiki. Such cases are sometimes picked up by journalists, and are almost certain to get a write up on The Wiki That Shall Not Be Named. When that happens, do we really want the reader to hear that we went nuclear on the first offense? Or that someone with "Grump" in their username decided that "we know what the end result is going to be"?

Besides, we don't know what the end result is going to be, The odds are high that he won't listen, but it is possible that he will. He already stopped editing articles and started editing talk pages, so he has shown that he can adapt to our rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think that worrying about what Wikipediocracy might have to say about this is something we should start taking into account here, and secondly, if you have a problem with my username, I suggest you raise it in an appropriate place. As for 'adopting our rules', I don't see this [155] post as evidence for that - on the contrary, he seems to be trying to insert his own fringe theories into articles by subterfuge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

C'mon, Guy, we don't actually know what's gonna happen, but we've all been around WP long enough that we've seen this before and really kinda know what the end result will be.

As for his change to talk pages, I don't see that as much of an improvement, more a lateral move on his part -- he's still trying to promote his OR, but he's now using a different methodology that he thinks is going to keep him out of trouble. There's been absolutely no forward motion on his part (as you know from your conversation with him) in acknowledging what the purpose of an encyclopedia is, and what the specific policies of this encyclopedia are, not to mention any declaration of intent to follow those policies. He's just churning water, waiting for things to calm down a bit so he can take up the banner again. BMK (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope Colton comes to AN/I and we hear his take on these accusations. It seems odd to talk about a person without them participating in the discussion. I know that can't be forced, but I hope he posts here before any proposed topic ban goes into effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

There is only one way this can go. Policy has been patiently explained, Cotton isn't listening. He has a theory which he wants to being to prominence and mainstream acceptance, but by its foundational policies, Wikipedia is not the place to do that. When his theory becomes accepted by the scientific community then we will cover it as he wishes us to, and not before. In the mean time, constantly explaining why he can't have what he wants represents a drain on people's time. The list of policies and guidelines he's violating is prettt impressive: WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SOAP and others, and given his recent request to ArbCom, I would argue also WP:NCR. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I could get behind a topic ban on physics (of which astronomy and astrophysics are a subset) and climate change, broadly construed. That way, if Cotton is interested in editing, maybe we might see a change in behavior. If he fails to understand and/or follow the topic ban, then escalating blocks. While the site ban I feel is inevitable given behavior on previous sites, I can see how a topic ban with escalating blocks wouldn't require too much more effort than just a straight up site ban while allowing for the possibility of productive editing. Sailsbystars (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• A topic ban seems like the least drastic thing we can do. I suspect this will either end in a site ban, or a voluntary complete withdrawal (if I can't edit these subjects I won't edit at all), but - call me crazy - I think we can at this point give the benefit of the doubt, and go for a topic ban. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Topic ban seems better than an absolute ban. You don't hunt a duck with a cannon. Howunusual (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Something needs to be done about the editor, so even though I think an indef block or community ban would be the least disruptive thing to do, I will support the broadest possible topic ban that everyone agrees on. Having shown no understanding off our policies about scientific material, that ban could be for all of science, it could be for physics, it could be for anything connected to thermodynamics, the greenhouse effect and climate change (broadly construed). Anyone closing this discussion should take this as a !vote for any broad topic ban. BMK (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a discretionary-sanctions notice on his talk page (for climate change), and support a topic ban on physics and climate change, broadly construed. Miniapolis 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed my notice, which duplicated Steven Zhang's earlier one :-). Miniapolis 21:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. In view of the language that can be read as a legal threat, would also support a community ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Suspended topic ban. Since there is enough consensus for a topic ban, we can let Cotton know that the topic ban will go into effect in, say, a week from now unless he changes his behavior. Here on Wikipedia we have User:Brian Josephson who takes a contrarian position on Cold Fusion, but he is able to make his points in a non-disruptive way. So, it should be possible for Cotton to change his behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The ink on the arbcom decline is barely dry, let's get the editor time to reassess their approach -- perhaps they can find some sources. NE Ent 03:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a condition of any potential unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Threatening WP:DRN volunteer?

From User talk:Steven Zhang#Complaint and potential action pertaining to an unresolved dispute:

"A complaint was in progress on DRN pertaining to the obvious fact that there is no valid physics which can confirm any possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect on Venus. That complaint was terminated without any response based on valid physics, and I am assuming that the real reason is that no one has a valid response.

If this complaint is not re-opened and appropriate scientific discussion ensues, then please understand that I am an active author through other media and will cite and discuss this draconian action by a WP committee in a fashion which would inevitably be detrimental to any reputation WP may have for presenting valid science."[156]

That's a rather nasty threat. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be, if there was any evidence that Cotton has any credibility beyond Wikipedia. There isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Credible or not, while that's not a legal threat it's clearly intended to cause a chilling effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep...they just threatened to write "in a fashion which would inevitably be detrimental to any reputation WP may have for presenting valid science". To me that states clearly this editor does not know how to work together and seems to NEED to have their way or else. Not appropriate and blockable in my view. Perhaps it really isn't...and if not, it should be.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't read it. Nor does it bother me. It's well known I edit with my real name. I'm a big boy. I can look after myself. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, you've always had the ability to take care of yourself, but that really isn't the point here. Other's reading it may avoid the topic if the feel they'd be the subject of off wiki attacks and this seems to be a threat of that nature.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait, someone on the Internet might say Wikipedia isn't reliable???? That's not a threat, that's a joke. (It's been done before). Best ignored. NE Ent 03:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The threat is, of course, not credible, yet its intent is clearly to have a WP:CHILLING EFFECT, which is within the penumbra of WP:NLT. It's easy to say "ignore the guy", but he won't shut up (see below), and is basically smearing his refusal to understand Wikipedia policies and processes in our faces, daring us to do something about it. That puts us on the slippery slope, because if we don't do something about this person, we open the door wide to all the other Douglas Cottons out there who would be overjoyed to use WP to promote their unaccepted "theories." That argues for not ignoring, but doing something. Topic ban, indef block, community ban, we just cannot turn our backs and expect this person to go away. BMK (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Site Ban

I don't like community site bans. The "community" is not an effective mechanism for getting rid of disruptive editors. It would be better if we had an Arbitration Committee that could ban them. However, it appears that our Arbitration Committee doesn't act. Support a site ban due to a combination of WP:NOTHERE, frivolous use of arbitration, which should boomerang, and threats that may or may not be legal threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, as I've already made clear - though the long screed below where Cotton demonstrates yet again that he entirely fails to understand the purpose of Wikipedia would surely have convinced me if I hadn't already formed that opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Response

from Douglas J Cotton, B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin. (winner of physics scholarship awarded by Prof Harry Messel and his team

Yes perhaps it is time to "brag" a little about my credentials in physics and the five decades I have spent helping university physics (and mathematics) students, and also being the author of mathematics software covering all 12 years of school mathematics, and having sold over a thousand copies of such throughout Australia. (I also won three other academic scholarships.) I have in recent years studied extensively in the field of climatology and post-graduate level physics, specializing in radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics, publishing two years ago a peer-reviewed paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Yes I do understand what an encyclopedia ought to be, and the lack of bias that it ought to display. Bias can be exercised through general policies pertaining to "reliable sources" which, when it really comes down to it, no one is in a position to judge.

NOR

Was Loschmidt's original paper (putting forward a hypothesis that gravity acts on molecules and forms both a density gradient and a temperature gradient) not even worth a mention in his biography on WP, let alone in an article on the gravito-thermal effect? Of course not, you would say, because you know full well that it explains the Venus dilemma, which cannot be explained with a radiative greenhouse hypothesis. Was Dr Hans Jelbring's peer-reviewed paper on the gravito-thermal effect (which he studied for his PhD in climatology) not reliable just because it was published in "Energy and Environment" which you no doubt consider to be an unreliable source? Is the comprehensive research of the research carried out by the Life Extension Foundation (since 1980) unreliable? Or is the real issue the fact that it poses a threat to the medical profession, just like the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect poses a threat to climatology research grants, as does my peer-reviewed paper, which you no doubt claim was reviewed by unreliable sources from among the hundreds of scientists who have joined Principia Scientific International because they know the greenhouse conjecture is false? Outside of its encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes article "talk" pages, and such are indeed an appropriate venue for anyone with suitable knowledge to suggest improvements to the article. Improvements can surely entail the removal of errors, and many such errors are clearly wrong because they are in disagreement with the very physics which Wikipedia documents. For example, the statement in vortex tube that the high temperature is due to the high pressure cannot be supported by the ideal gas law or any valid physics. What physics tells us (as a corollary of the second law of thermodynamics) is that a state of maximum entropy evolves. There is no way that there can be a relationship with pressure causing temperature for the obvious reason that gravity does not act on "pressure" but it acts on molecules, causing the state of maximum entropy to evolve. That state, according to valid physics, is isentropic and thus has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. Then we derive pressure, because pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature. But the Vortex tube supports Loschmidt's hypothesis, so it is against Wikipedia's agenda to allow my hypothesis to appear in among the other incorrect ones. Nobody pulls wool over Cotton's eyes. Now, I have given an undertaking not to edit articles. So you can ban me from editing articles if you wish, because I won't even attempt to do so. I have explained that, when I first did so, I didn't even notice the link to article talk pages. These talk pages could potentially help editors to sort out what is a theory and what is merely a hypothesis. But neither a theory or a hypothesis can be valid if it is clearly in violation of the laws of physics. Sadly the greenhouse conjecture is not built upon the maximum entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and its inventors lacked an understanding of when radiation transfers thermal energy and when it does not, as in explained in my peer-reviewed paper mentioned above. Be that as it may, Wikipedia editors ought to look into situations where anyone, myself included, points out in talk pages that there are statements in articles which run contrary to the laws of physics. These laws won't go away: they are the foundation of the universe, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics "controls" all natural thermodynamic processes, not just those involving heat transfer. I have no "theory" of my own. I would not dare to call my "hypothesis" a theory. But you don't understand that there are two quite separate arenas in my agenda. One is explaining why the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt was correct about the gravito-thermal effect (and all attempts to rebuke it - including Verkley's - have inherent fallacies in their arguments) and the other is my hypothesis (built upon the Second Law) that convection can indeed move from the cooler regions of tropospheres to the warmer surfaces, because the process is one in which maximum entropy is evolving following a disruption to thermodynamic equilibrium. I agree that this hypothesis has no part yet in Wikipedia, but the former issue of the gravito-thermal effect ought to be the subject of an unbiased article (that I'd be happy to write) which points out viewpoints and arguments on both sides.

But, anticipating your refusal to publish any such article by anyone, I still maintain that it will potentially improve the integrity of WP if you allow comments from myself (and other physicists now joining my group) in relevant talk pages. Douglas Cotton (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

What you can do is argue on the talk page based on the notability of a particular point of view. What you cannot do is argue on the basis of correctness of some approach if this is not sufficiently notable. What the article will say should reflect what the prevailing point of view in the scientific community is, even if that view is not correct. If indeed it is not correct and a small mionority of scientists know the truth about that issue, then Wikipedia will have to wait until the prevailing view changes to reflect that. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. But the laws of physics are also the "prevailing view" and I suggest it is not appropriate to have self-contradiction within WP. Hence if someone implies something like the high temperature in a vortex tube is due to high pressure, it serves no purpose other than to confuse society. The greenhouse conjecture does enough of that confusing anyway. I'm sure the aim of any encyclopedia is not to confuse readers with internal conflict. That is where informed comment in the talk pages (by those with appropriate knowledge, as is stated in WP guidelines) can potentially improve WP, and no doubt has in many cases. But for WP editors to single out some contributor because his overall agenda is to reveal the truth to the public about the greenhouse conjecture, then that action is questionable and not in the interests of science. My point is that "sufficiently notable" becomes nothing but a viewpoint of WP.

Footnote: Maybe you don't realize it, but "Count Iblis" (in your link) does in fact make a valid point about vitamin D - something about which I have read many scientific studies. The studies are there for WP to report upon, and some are from government authorities which I consider sufficiently notable. But just because I have studied such matters, and clearly slowed down my own rate of aging quite significantly, does not mean WP has to discuss the rate of human aging - but I suggest they should discuss valid scientific research carried out with the same precision as the best of research associated with pharmaceutical drugs.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't care. All models are wrong, some models are useful George Box. Physics has one way of determining truth (experimental) and Wikipedia has another way of determining what gets put into articles (reliable sources). To come into a different society (Wikipedia) and attempt to reach a goal not understanding its rules isn't wise, regardless of how many letters one can put after one's name NE Ent (B.S. MIT, LMNOPQRST) (Okay I made the LMNOPRST part up.) 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeff'ed

NOTHERE, gone. Any admin who believes I overreached, or that they have reformed, may unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Does this justify revocation of talk page access? VQuakr (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it probably does (it's not a legal threat, but it is inappropriate use of the talk page while blocked). Also, good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Good block, thanks for cutting to the chase. BMK (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone hasn't noticed, he's continuing his soapboxing on his talk page. Thrub (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, and he's repeating the legal warning thing too Thrub (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Good block. Although I personally prefer escalating blocks, that's a judgement call. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems as if talk page access should be cut-off as well, since he seems intent on using the page to promote his theories. He can request an unblock through ArbCom or BASC. BMK (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We care why? No one is required to read a blocked user's talk page and unless one is an admin evaluating an unblock, or a good faith user, such as Liz, trying to convert the editor into a productive Wikipedian [157], it's hard to see a good reason for other editors to be posting there. NE Ent 14:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a bad block, and here's why. Since the editor had stopped mucking up articles, he was clearly responsive, to some extent, regarding concerns expressed to him about WP policy. There was some small, non-zero chance -- say between 1 (pessimist) and 3 (optimistic) percent -- they could be converted to a productive editor. Given that there are a quarter million [158] unreferenced articles, and the number of articles (6,827,701) to active editors (120,533) ratio is 56.645906100404, we really do need all the editors we can get. Given the indef block, plus false accusations of legal threats -- [159] note the phrase "I am not threatening any such action initiated by myself" -- that probabability is now effectively zero. Of course, no one is going to burn political capital reversing a block or protesting against a singular block that, 97% of the time, would have eventually been needed anyway, so it has the appearance of a "good block." But one hundred such blocks could result in the loss of one to three sorely needed editors. NE Ent 14:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

...but will definitely result in numerous already-here, already-productive editors not wasting time putting out fires while Herr Doktor Professor Dip.Bus.Admin (Winner of Physics Scholarship Awarded By Prof Harry Messel And His Team, with Silver Star Cluster, Oak Leaves, and Good Posture Tiara), and the other 99 you postulate, finally -- perhaps -- learn that they too must not play with matches. EEng (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Issue seems kind of over, but I agree with EEng - while potential productive editors should not be discouraged, existing productive editors shouldn't be asked to spend increasing amounts of time cleaning up after others in the 1-3% hope that those others might stop disrupting Wikipedia. There comes a point of diminishing returns in trying to assist an unproductive contributor, and I think we may have reached it in this case. Euryalus (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

What is there that requires "cleaning up"? NE Ent 12:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Just slogging through his policy-oblivious edits and/or talk comments is drain enough. EEng (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page use

Note: Cotton continues to use his talk page as a platform for nonsense about "a huge class action law suit". [160] Since he clearly isn't using it for any useful purpose, I suggest that blocking talk page access would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor continues using talk page as a rhetorical soapbox to promote his OR theories: [161], [162], [163]. Talk page access should be revoked. BMK (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Now he's using off-wiki methods to harass editors, and advertising them on his talkpage. I have revoked said access DP 09:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for Honor Roll of WP:NOTHERE Champions (No-Really-I-Made-Myself-Look-Like-A-Ranting-Crackpot-And-Shot-Myself-In-The-Foot-On-Purpose Division)

Lest anyone fret further that a potentially valuable editor has been chased away, I submit for the record Cotton's revelation (posted here) that we are all pawns of his "engineered" plan to expose WP for the fraud that it is:

My point is that Wikipedia has a responsibility of due diligence to check the information it propagates ... Someone has to pay for the lack of due diligence, and my purpose in registering with Wikipedia, and deliberately incurring their arrogant responses (as anticipated) and their blocking action was primarily to obtain evidence (retained in screen captures) which may well be helpful if large companies initiate class action against the IPCC, Wikipedia, universities and maybe some individuals.

So clever of him to use screen captures to preserve old versions of pages -- a crafty strategist indeed! But if we think fast we may yet be able to contain the damage by intercepting the floppy disks containing those smoking-gun images, which no doubt are even now winging their way by space-age Air Mail to various heads of state, university officials, and the Pope. EEng (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that's funny -- he's so disruptive we have to ban and then remove talk page access, and to prove it we seek out his off-wiki comments and transcribe them back on-wiki? (Incidentally there's probably some tech violations of both proxying and personal attacks /civility in that contribution but, as is sometimes the case, those rules are much more about protecting "the tribe" that minimizing real disruption. And the fact that we tolerate such insults when the victims are "unworthy" is part of the reason our civiliy "policy" is such a mess.) NE Ent 17:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

While I don't mind injecting a little humor, my purpose was serious -- by his own admission he intended from the first to provoke a block for himself, and bringing that out ends the waste of any more time on salvaging this nincompoop. That he thinks he needs screen captures and so on underscores how little he bothered to understand even the most fundamental feature of a "wiki". EEng (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ent - You're being silly, this guy was clearly WP:NOTHERE and doesn't deserve the energy you're putting into complaining about how he was traeted. Save your emotions for someone who's truly being misunderstood or ganged up on, this person ain't it. BMK (talk) 18:55, 6 April 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.

Interaction ban 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.

---

I would like to propose an interaction ban between myself and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

First off, I will state right away that I am a fan of pornography (but if anyone thinks I think anything porn-related should stay on Wikipedia, this should change your mind). In several AfDs for pornography-related subjects, HW has !voted delete, which certainly isn’t against policy, but the thing about it is, whenever I try to challenge his (I remember him saying a while ago that he is male) viewpoint, he responds in the meanest way possible. Initially, he started by calling my viewpoints “purposefully obtuse” ([164] [165]…and I’m still not sure what that means, btw), but then he moved over to accusations of me personalizing things in discussions ([166] [167] [168]). Now he calls my disagreements with him disruptive and tells me to “stop casting aspersions” when people disagree with me (when it’s really the other way around: [169][170] (also [171], which indicates how long this nonsense has been going on)). Also, notice that he even posts in all bold text like he’s chastising me or something.

Also, I mentioned here that HW banned me from his talk page, and that stemmed from an entirely different subject where I made an edit and then he reverted it with a very rude edit summary (I then calmly reverted it again and even suggested that we discuss it, but do you think he was as calm?). I then suggested that he learn how to talk to people, and that’s what made me “unwelcome on his talk page”? That’s actually laughable…as is the idea of “commandeering a shortcut”. (SN: I also told him in the past that given that he tends to behave that way toward others as well, he doesn’t get to bully his way around Wikipedia, nor is he in charge of things around here: [172] [173]) BTW, my calling attention to his wikihounding of me is disruptive? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.

Basically, I still like Wikipedia and I will continue to edit (in fact, most of the articles I created in the past few months are music-related), but I want nothing to do with him. I shouldn’t have to put up with his behavior when I’m trying to edit. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You want dispute resolution, down the hall, second door on your left. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm obviously not neutral here but none of your diffs are very recent. In fact, the most recent appears to be 4 months ago. Do you have any curent examples of misconduct as this otherwise looks rather stale. It does have to be said that you do have form for casting aspersions tpwards your opponants. Only yesterday you banned me from your talk page after I asked you to explain a post where you accused me of bragging after an article was deleted at AFD [174]. The Irony being that all I had done was ask the deleting admin to post a rationale to the deletion. I can find dozens of diffs of other editors taking you to task for casting aspersions so why does it bother you so much when HW does? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, for anyone else looking at this, you might find it useful to look at the interaction tool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

[175] seems in some cases to provide more complete results, and less in others :(. Collect (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I clicked the first "purposefully obtuse" link (a diff to this AfD). Two points: it's from 2011, and HW deserves a medal if he is still trying to deal with the lack of understanding shown there. The second link is a diff to this AfD which shows that HW was again exactly correct. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Johnuniq. I won't claim to have made any exhaustive study of this situation, but I do get the overall impression that HW is generally in the right in those interactions. We can hardly sanction an editor for being correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I am not an administrator so please feel free to remove my comment if I am not eligible to post here. I want to make a comment on our friend Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's nomination of porn related articles. I don't think he is exactly correct in all cases particularly for nominating Skweez Media and Customs4U under CSD A7 criteria when a simple google search would return mainstream media coverage. Talpatra (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll admit that I've had my fair share of disagreements with HW and will admit that he does make some good catches on edits, but the latter seems more of an exception than a norm from my dealings with this User. He very much seems to operate with an "I don't like it" editing style especially with regard to porn related articles that are for U.S. based actors and actresses (he is in the U.K.) and then makes every effort to justify it by citing a strict adherence to his understanding/interpretation of BLP policy. The list of porn articles alone that HW has posted on this Users Talk page is some indication of his attitudes or at least the focus of his efforts. I don't believe that HW needs to be sanctioned, but his attitude towards others could use some softening. In all fairness, the worst thing I can accuse him of is being victim to Systemic Bias. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• If an editor follows another editor from a disputed topic area into a topic wholly unrelated, then that is a problem. Otherwise, one has to accept that there are certain issues that are very divisive within this project. Not real-world mirrors like the Occupied Territories or abortion, but rather issues internal to the project such as our scope of coverage and what we should nor should not be extending coverage to. As far as I am aware, no one on the "delete the porn fluff!" side is a moral crusader in the (sizable) mold of an Andrea Dworkin; rather, they are those who oppose on notability grounds, that the threshold for porn actors was far, far too low and needs to be cleaned up. Not everyone has to like each other, or even always play nice. I know they teach that in public school these days, but the reality of the world is that people butt heads. Deal with it, or move on. My personal observation here is that Erpert is losing the porn war, esp in the wake of the removal of "has been nominated" from WP:PORNBIO recently, and is getting a tad bit frustrated. Asking for i-bans is just a way to throw red tape at a problem, making everyone else's job that much harder to sort out idiotic "I was here first and now he's posting next to me, MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!" ANI reports every other week. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You're incorrect about that, Tarc; if I felt I was "losing the porn war", why would I have started an AfD on one of my favorite porn actresses? (Incidentally, since WP:PORNBIO has been changed, I rarely create anything porn-related anymore; the only subjects I can think of recently are Shyla Jennings, Skow for Girlfriends Films and Me and My Girlfriend, because those subjects actually won awards.) But back to the topic at hand, I'm hardly the first person who has ever asked for an IBAN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• The issue here isn't whether or not HW is right when he interacts with someone. The issue is how and how did they get to the point where interaction occurred. For example, if I suddenly had a falling out with Tarc (to randomly pick the person above me), and then started going to every single topic area where Tarc edits and start picking on their edits and nomming articles, I'm clearly being harassing. The "contribs" list is there for a reason - and there's a fine line between monitoring and stalking ES&L 17:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @JzG (Guy): I was told that I could indeed make an interaction ban request here.

@Spartaz: This isn't even about you, so why are you bringing yourself up? And where are these "dozens of diffs"? You haven't provided any.

IP 86.5.93.42 (a DRV regular); IP 74.74.150.139 (another DRV regular); me (these 3 all from same DRV; Both Hullabaloo Wolfovitz and myself in this discussion; This ANI thread - Hobit says you are a badgerer, S Marshall asks you to consider your own behavior part of the problem and uninvolved admin Jreferee refers to the leveling of unsupported accusations; In this ANI thread Hut8.5 says you were partially responsible for the personaliation of a discussion, UltraExactZZ also says you were partially to blame and again says that you made a personal comment about another editor attacking their motives, late on in the same thread UltraExactZZ calls you out again for making another personal comment, Hobit says you personalised it at both DRV and this ANI. I could probably find more if I could be bothered to search for more but I think this rather makes the point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are all people who have disagreed with me, sure, but none of them have actually followed me around like HW has (and interestingly, he hasn't even commented here). I also find it interesting that many of those diffs come from a complaint I made about you...and like I said before, this isn't about you at all (although this recent comment doesn't make you look good...still, I addressed the accusation). But can we keep things on track, please? (SN: That interaction tool you linked to above doesn't necessarily indicate when HW and I actually interacted, just where we both happened to post in the same place.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that HW is following you around. His AFD nominations are based on article content not who created it. You are not the only editor whose articles are being nominated. The proof of the pudding is that they are uniformly being deleted. Again, your editing style is to accuse people who disagree with you. No-one is buying your conspiracy theories. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The reason some of the diffs are old is because only recently had I learned that an interaction ban was even possible; in addition, it also helps to beg the question why he has been allowed to behave this way for so long. And true, one of the diffs is from 2011, but HW kept bringing that discussion up in the subsequent diffs I listed (I even told him several times to stop bringing that up). And if he was correct about Dylan Ryan, why is that article still there? But if you want a more recent diff, here's one that I forgot. Also notice this, where he even claims that I think BLP requirements are "all about me". I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean.

I'm not seeing any issues with either of those diffs. Deletion discussions can be very robust and you are hardly a shrinking violet yourself when it comes to the way you engage with other editors. I can't help feeling we have a case of a mote in someone's eye while ignoring a beam in yours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Starblind: I understand that I posted a lot of diffs, but if you didn't study the whole thing, are you going to honestly say that he was correct in addressing me the way he did? It's fine for him to not be civil?

@Talpatra: This thread isn't about pornography in itself; it's about my being mistreated in discussions stemming from discussions about pornography. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Lets cut to the chase

What is really happening here is that having lost the argument over PORNBIO Erpert has created a lot of content that is no longer suitable for inclusion. Rather then accept this, he is continuing to try to retain it come what may. This IBAN request is nothing more then a cynical attempt to prevent Hullabaloo Wolfowitz from taking these articles to AFD, where they are being deleted despite the most outrageously specious arguments. . Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to knock it off, Spartaz. I don't recall stating anywhere in this thread that I'm mad that HW is nominating articles I created for deletion, and I clearly explained that this is about his behavior toward me in general (an issue that is understood). Why are you even so upset that I'm asking for an IBAN against someone else? (BTW, I don't know what "a case of a mote in someone's eye while ignoring a beam in yours" is supposed to mean.) Speaking of that, what still makes you think you can bully me? I'm not putting up with your behavior either. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:01, 5 April 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.

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

It appears that this article is under attack by POV pushers who often resort to edit-warring instead of discussing (some are suspected sockpuppets). This is somehow disruptive so can someone please take a look and do something about it? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. There's been active edit-warring of the same revision repeatedly for the last ten hours or so. There's been a lot of disruption in this article (and the talk page - it was briefly semi-ed) for the last couple of weeks. Intervention is needed at this point. (I was on my way to ANEW and RPP with this but spotted this first.) --ElHef (Meep?) 18:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:GottiQuotes SPA

I'd like to get a few eyes on this account, it's an odd SPA. It may not be good faith to say so but the additions, using references from youtube and smoking gun seems to be more of a trivia account than anything. I've never came across an account like this and something seems just a little fishy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There are videos taken in a Federal Prison that have both audio and video. They sure seem reliable and notable. I guess people don't like them as they want them taken down. They also claim John Gotti speaking on video (that he knew he was be recorded) is not a good source. GottiQuotes (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. The source is legit, as the videos are authentic and clearly taken by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which would even make them Public Domain per {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}. However, the portions that GottiQuotes are selecting from the source seem undue to me. I think it's more notable from watching the videos that he didn't want to see his own daughter. Sensationalizing that he used racial slurs... not especially notable. Doc talk 14:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a big article, it lists all kind of not so notable things. There are only 2 brief racial slurs in the whole article. Although the quotes may not be notable to white people, they are very notable if you are African American.

--GottiQuotes (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any interest in adding things outside of gotti quotes? If I'm offbase any non connected editor can close this down it's just a darn unusual thing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't close this just yet. edit and one are quite "questionable". The ultimately originally researched "irony" of an African-American rapper styling his stage name after a gangster that was really prejudiced against African-Americans is clearly not within the scope of the articles. To me it seems like part of an agenda being pushed using the provided source. And the username is really quite shady. Doc talk 06:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To me its either promoting http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/blowing-gotti, or trying to provoke a response by posting controversial information out of context and hiding behind a source. The user page carries on the theme. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am commenting here because I have been received a request to review the discussion and comment on it.

1. I have no wish to get involved in discussions about notability and weight, which in any case are not administrative issues, and do not belong here.
2. I doubt the accuracy of "taken by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which would even make them Public Domain". While the videos were apparently made by a US government agency, the content of those videos appears to be one or more private conversations, and unless there is some special provision of US copyright law that I am unaware of, the copyright of that content by default belongs to the participants in those conversations. In addition to any copyright issue, it seems likely that the videos have been made public without consent of the participants, which is a violation of privacy. The links must therefore not be used. Revision-deletion of the links to the videos might even be worth considering.
3. The editing history, combined with the username, indicate that the account User:GottiQuotes exists purely for the purpose of publicising particular videos, and particular remarks by John Gotti, probably in order to give greater exposure to facts about Gotti's opinions which GottiQuotes wishes to make better known. GottiQuotes should be aware that an account which exists purely or principally for the purpose of promoting or publicising anything is liable to be blocked.
4. GottiQuotes has repeated the same, or essentially the same, editing on at least a couple of articles, and on one article has done so three times. This is not enough on its own to warrant a block, but GottiQuotes should read Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, which states that an editor who persistently repeats the same edits can be blocked. For some reason that I have never understood, a large number of editors are able to read that policy and come away with the idea that edit warring is acceptable as long as one does not breach the so-called "three revert rule". Just in case GottiQuotes might make that mistake, I emphasise that the policy explicitly states that that is not so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&curid=7027344&diff=602989096&oldid=602941343#BOP

There is no individual copyright opportunity when we're talking about prisoners in U.S. Federal custody filmed by federal authorities in the course of their duties, and the images/videos/sound bytes are in the public domain. Footage filmed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (a division of the Department Of Justice) cannot be copyrighted. Period. The copyright holder is the one who recorded the footage, and that would be all of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GottiQuotes (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• By any chance are you User:King Genovese? I notice several similarities, including your singular interest in mob members, and gay mob members in particular, just as Genovese (and his many socks) did. I notice you also recreated one of his sock's articles, Robert Mormando (admin can see in the deleted contribs). Frankly, I can't help but wonder. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am Not User:King Genovese, nor do I know who it is. --GottiQuotes (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The edits were rather technically sound when added. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

RevDelete summary 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.

---

I know RevDelete requests are discouraged on ANI, however it is a nuisance. Over at 2014 Winter Olympics, 68.225.81.151 is vandalizing, both on the article itself and in the edit summary. If an administrator can RevDelete the edit summaries for that IP, that would be great. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a day or two (possibly a little soon, but it didn't look as though he planned on doing anything else), but there's nothing in those edits that would merit a revdel, so I've left them be. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit summaries are a pain because, at least for my computer, it extends past the border and is just a pain to look at the article history. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:29, 4 April 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.

Huggle Reverts

Resolved

Could someone please take a look at the history of Santiago de Surco? There's a fellow IP trying to add something that looks constructive, and an idiot equipped with more tools than they know how to handle blindly reverting and accusing the IP of vandalism. They have completely ignored the IP's polite attempts at discussion. I think the IP deserves some backup from someone with a username tbh. 86.147.72.194 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that they are questioning the changes to the article which seem to be unexplained. Post the rationale on the talkpage, I'll lend a hand. Please note WP:NPA Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it because the previous map and information was correct. I can't find any sources for the IP's claims.Katieh5584 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion, take it to the talkpage. I am reluctant to say this is vandalism because it looks like they be trying to correct the info just not in the correct way. I would suggest discussing it a little further but remember that it is still edit warring unless it's blatant vandalism. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have posted to the talkpage and won't revert the article again.Katieh5584 (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Katieh5584, normally what happens is when you remove or challenge unsourced material the onus is on the person adding it to justify. If they don't ask wait a period of time than remove. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Katieh5584 (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the OP (in the article; I am of this thread) and I don't actually know if the edits are correct. So I am not trying to reinstate them. My objection was to the threats and refusal to discuss. Since Katieh5584 still has not removed their threats from the OP's page, I did it for them. 86.147.72.194 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Katieh5584 has made no "threats" - the standardised templates used were inappropriate, but are not threats. However, Katieh5584 did wildly exceed WP:3RR - and so did the IP, for that matter - as they've stated that they won't revert further, I won't block, but they're both warned that edit-warring is not acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It also looks like Katieh5584 has been using Huggle to revert large numbers of edits, where many are vandalism, some are arguably good faith attempts at editing, and a few are definitely good faith edits. I think Huggle shouldn't be used for these even if there's a good case for reverting to the earlier text with a suitable edit summary or discussion. --Amble (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't make reverts maliciously, I realise that I don't get It right all the time. I will stick to reverting obvious vandalism. However, I don't understand why the above IP decided to make a complaint when it doesn't involve them.Katieh5584 (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of your edits are great. There are just a few where you might consider not using Huggle, and discussing a bit. From what I've seen you're probably right on the content and style in those cases, too. --Amble (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Katieh5584 (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The above IP is still being rude to me on their talk page.Katieh5584 (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry if you were offended. I stand by my points but maybe my language was too blunt. You still haven't apologised for your carelessness though. 86.147.72.194 (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You reap what you sow -- if you start a post on a user's talk page with "If you bothered to read the WP:AN/I ..." you're not going to get warm and fuzzy back. The big picture here is that while reverting vandalism is good (thanks!) it's important to try to separate the wheat from the chaff and not inappropriately bite good faith editors. NE Ent 12:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I only said that because the IP has been accusing me of making threats.Katieh5584 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making excuses for my behaviour, but I'm autistic and my people skills aren't very good.Katieh5584 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry and OWNing at Tao Lin

I recently brought up an issue regarding an anonymous editor repeatedly adding hoax information with a citation pointing to a 4chan archive and engaging in other such disruptive editing. After receiving a final warning on their talk page, another anonymous editor with no other editing history picked up where the previous one left off in inserting the same information. Though I would like to assume good faith, I believe it is reasonable to assume these editors are connected. I would also believe it's quite plausible these edits are being made by the article's subject himself, who, according to the associated talk page, has a history of attempting to control his page. However, unlike previous related cases I've looked into, Tao (assuming these edits are in fact being made by him) doesn't seem to have a clear agenda with what he is trying to push off or onto his article.

I posted a brief message regarding this issue to the requests for protection noticeboard and was told that disruptive editing was not occurring frequently enough to warrant protection. However, after reviewing the page history, I believe Tao is religiously watching the page and using various sockpuppet accounts/anonymous (likely proxy) IPs to control the page's content.

I'm here asking for an opinion from the community on what should be done in this situation. felt_friend 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I want Tao Lin to be semi-protected because 85.69.198.194 made poor hoax information edits to that article. I want that editor and 78.250.153.235 to be blocked as well. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a week, which will prevent these IPs from editing it. If the problem resumes when the protection wears off, please file a report at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Anupan and TheMesquito

These admins have misused their rollback privileges to restore vanity content to the article phi1 Ceti. Lots of unofficial companies will name a star for anyone for a price. It's pure vanity but these folks have used their rollback privileges to keep it. Help me to remove this garbage and prevent these users from misusing their privileges again. 24.7.178.138 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User did not include anything in the edit summery when I reverted (see here) and all i saw was a revert of a Unexplained removal with no reason why, so I also reverted, also user made very little effort to inform me, as he posted that he thought i was misusing my Rollback right and then reported me before I could even respond on my talk page. TheMesquito (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I used an edit summary you didn't read it. How could u conclude my edit was vandalism which is your only right to use rollback and not bother to read it??? This is the kind of excuses misusing your powers shows you cannot be trusted with them. 24.7.178.138 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking at the link I posted? All I saw was a reverted message with no reason why the edit was reverted, and you assumed immediately that I was doing it in bad faith and reported me before I could even respond on my talk page to your message. You should always assume WP:GOODFAITH and not immediately report someone to the admins without them being able to respond to you. I will undo the edit now, since it is such a big deal to you, just add a edit summery next time on your revert message. TheMesquito (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use rollback to revert edits just because the edit summary is missing. It says so in WP:Rollback in the first couple of paragraphs. Moreover I did use a written edit summary in the edit rolled back by Anupan what'll be his excuse? 24.7.178.138 (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The power users need to be reminded that use of rollback is PROHIBITED for reverting good faith edits. So the use of rollback is the assumption of bad faith on the editor you're reverting. 24.7.178.138 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, 24*, you're the one mistaken here - WP:ROLLBACK was not used. WP:TWINKLE was, and Twinkle's rollback function can be used for reverting any edit, not just vandalism (indeed, there's even a "Rollback (AGF)" button in Twinkle). While the reverts may or may not have been appropriate, this is a content dispute, not a case of rollback abuse, and should be closed accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use twinkle rollback without rollback rights those were misused. 24.7.178.138 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC) also u cannot use twinkle against good faith edits. Read the sbuse section on WP:twinkle

I agree that Anupam had no reason to revert, but I do not understand the reason I am included in this ANI, as all i saw was a edit revert without a reason why the edit was reverted and unexplained removal content without a proper edit summery. The user could have easily put "I removed the vanity in this article." on the revert but did not, assumed bad faith and did not let me properly respond to him/her on my talk page before I was reported for abuse of rollback privileges. TheMesquito (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

U have assumed bad faith on my part otherwise you were forbidden from using either twinkle or rollback. The only basis is that I used no edit summary on reverting Anupam unwarranted reversion. That's all bad faith requires around here? 24.7.178.138 (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Er...if you "can't use Twinkle against good faith edits", then having a Revert (AGF) button on Twinkle would be rather hypocritical. This is not rollback abuse. This is not Twinkle abuse. This is a content dispute, and as such the underlying dispute (such as it is) is not an AN/I matter. Also, 24*, please properly indent your replies so the conversation can be followed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So is this good? If I did anything wrong, please tell me, but I just did not understand why I was reported. I assumed good faith and checked edit summery before i did anything, and was reported to the admins without a chance to explain to the editor why I did it.TheMesquito (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not good, and the problem was caused by User:Anupam reverting, without an edit summary, the IP's edit, which did have an edit summary. If you'd looked at the article history, you would have seen this. Since I'm now going to go to Anupam's talk page and tell them my opinions about their poor editing, there's no administrator action required here. (Unless I end up expressing my opinions unduly harshly, or someone can point out other examples of problematic editing of this nature from Anupam in the past.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if i did anything wrong, I do try to use rollback rights correctly, and will make sure to take better care to not do this again. 15:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMesquito (talk • contribs)

Agreed - that is a problem, but that's a "not leaving an edit summary while reverting" problem, as opposed to an "abuse of rollback" probelm. I agree that it seems we're done here now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that Anupam, as can be seen at [176], has been hasty in reverting productive and good-faith IP editors at astronomy topics before, so this isn't a one-time occurrence. He hasn't provided an explanation for that incident either, and it occurred about a week ago, even after the IP queried him on his talk page with [177]. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

this is a recurring problem and Anupam has totally ignored this ANI, he should have his rollback privileges revoked. Do that and then close this. Power users cannot run roughshod with impunity. 24.7.178.138 (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

First, as has been explained several times already, Rollback has not been used here, Twinkle has. Which leads to the second point: Twinkle is not something that can be revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, so the only thing we can do with Anupam is to block him, which we're not going to do over just two diffs of him reverting inappropriately. In the meantime, Anupam has apologised on my talk page and suggested he will be more careful. Please come back if there are further problematic reverts in the future. (Or, if you like, start a WP:RFC/U on him.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

He has now made it clear that he realizes the problems, and has promised to be more careful. I think that response should satisfy everybody here, and unless this happens again, there's nothing more to do here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Long term sockpuppeter back

If anyone is interested, puppeteer Princeneil (talk · contribs) appears to be back as James Mich (talk · contribs), recreating recent AfD Asif Ali Laghari as Asif Ali LEghari. I have CSD'd the page and added the suspected sock to the SPI page. 220 of ^Borg 08:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. As soon as I saw the first two edits by Bordan man (now both deleted), I thought "sockpuppet", but waited for a few more edits until it became a total DUCK case before blocking. Then I saw James Mich, and that was obviously the same person again, so I blocked that too. I have also requested a CheckUser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princeneil for sleepers. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. A ridiculous amount of time has been spent chasing 'Asif Ali Laghari' and his many alter-egos. A real WT&! moment when I saw that name in the New Pages again. I wonder if they realise the damage to their academic career that could result from acting like a complete twit, as they have been? 220 of ^Borg 13:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Perhaps it is time to add an "edit filter" entry trigger whenever anyone adds text that is common to and unique to the pages he likes to create. If nothing else, "if text matches and editor has fewer that X edits or is not yet autoconfirmed then log it somewhere that will get attention and if possible make the editor "not eligible to become autoconfirmed" until 90 days and 100 edits (just like IPBE TOR editors). If this sock is rarely waiting to become autoconfirmed before creating the page, the rule can be "if not autoconfirmed and if the text matches, then raise an alarm. In addition, if edit is to a non-discussion page (for simplicity's sake, treat all of WP: as if it was a discussion page) then block edit." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes davidwr, that would be a good idea. The less they know what we are doing, the better though so, shhh! ;-) The sock I noted above did create the page with their first edit. Nb. Apparently there is a genuine academic by the name Asif Ali Laghari, who I feel rather sorry for. No guarantee that the person whose picture is being used is really the person claimed, coming from Facebook.- 220 of ^Borg 18:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war at Young Earth creationism

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 is a slow-motion multi-editor edit war going on at Young Earth creationism. All of the editors are experienced and have not hit 3RR, and some of them have simply made a single good-faith revert, but together they are reverting at a rate of about ten per day.

I have created a timeline below in the hopes that an administrator will look it over and at least give a few warnings instead of the usual minimum-effort solution of protecting the page without addressing the behavior. some of these editors are involved in similar disputes on other pages, and IMO the problem will start up as soon as the page protection expires. This isn't just a content dispute. It is an ideology dispute.

Here is the timeline:

• 22:55, 3 April 2014[178] QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV changed "The scientific consensus is that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years" to "The measurements show that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years"

Note that "measurements show" still links to scientific consensus"

Edit Summary: (these are measurements, not opinions.)

• 23:13, 3 April 2014[179] GDallimore reverted it to "scientific consensus" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (not possible to measure directly, or it would be easy...)

• 13:17, 4 April 2014[180] QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reverted it back to "measurements show" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (Reverted good faith edits by GDallimore: This is what I study for a living and I can tell you, it is possible to measure this directly as any other measurement. Just because there are people that don't like the measurement doesn't mean it's...)

• 14:06, 4 April 2014[181] Wdanwatts reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (Undid revision 602721910 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk)Measurements ONLY "show" if there is a theory to interpret them. Measurements are neutral.)

• 17:00, 4 April 2014[182] QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reverted it back to "measurements show" (2RR)

Edit Summary: (Reverted 1 edit by Wdanwatts (talk): Advocacy of creationism is prima facie evidence of lack of WP:COMPETENCE. (TW))

• 17:31, 4 April 2014[183] GDallimore reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (2RR)

Edit Summary: (neutrality doesn't require attacking creationism at every opportunity. Take it to talk)

• 20:10, 4 April 2014[184] Ronz reverted it back to "measurements show" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (Undid revision 602751349 by GDallimore (talk) per FRINGE, NPOV, SOAP)

• 20:26, 4 April 2014[185] Gandalf61 reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (rv - previous version is better, clearer, more accurate)

• 20:27, 4 April 2014[186] Ronz reverted it back to "measurements show" (2RR)

Edit Summary: (Undid revision 602773083 by Gandalf61 (talk) soapboxing nonsense isn't logical)

• 21:31, 4 April 2014[187] Jojalozzo changed "measurements show" to "multiple scientific disciplines supporting the conclusion"

Edit Summary: (top: copy edit)

• 22:55, 4 April 2014 QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV drops from 2RR to 1RR (24 hour rule)

• 23:13, 4 April 2014 GDallimore drops from 2RR to 1RR (24 hour rule)

• 10:10, 5 April 2014[188] Gandalf61 reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (2RR)

Edit Summary: (more precise)

• 14:34, 5 April 2014[189] QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reverted it to "measurements" (2RR, 3rd revert)

Edit Summary: (young earth creationism itself isn't "contradicted". Only the distinguishing beliefs.)

• 15:32, 5 April 2014[190] GDallimore reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (2RR, 3rd revert)

Edit Summary: (previous version was better written, accurate and represented the source better. Triple whammy of reasons for reverting.)

(Notifications sent using Template:ANI-notice) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I am actually pretty pleased with how things have progressed in this issue. Maybe I'm naive, but I think we're reaching a point where GDallimore and myself and the others active at the article and talkpage (note that Guy Macon is not really making any meaningful proposals that I can see) might be ready to reach a working compromise. But maybe not. I'd be inclined to beg you all to let us see what develops. There is, for example, ongoing activity at the talkpage and we've got some good people at WP:FTN helping (not withstanding protestations that you can't measure the age of the Earth). What has really not helped matters is Guy Macon's hyperventilating over the issue:

• Claiming I'm inserting lies
• Insulting me in edit summaries

I get it, Guy doesn't like me. Why he's dragging a crowd to drama boards over this rather than allowing the users to resolve this amongst ourselves is beyond me. Also, wouldn't WP:3RRN be a more appropriate venue? or WP:RPP?

jps (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is edit warring, it can be easily reported at WP:ANEW. But while there is debate about the exact wording, this seems like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. jps believes there is progress being made on the article talk page so I don't know what actions you are looking for, Guy, and against which editors they should be taken. I agree there is a problem but it seems like it's being handled like other disputes are handled. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's editing, not an edit war. Wiki is supposed to be fast / quick (hence the name). Participants are communicating on talk page just fine. NE Ent 20:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

An edit war is when an article see-saws between competing versions. That was the case yesterday, but now it seems to be converging on a consensus version. There's nothing to do here. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If the edit war dies down by itself, I am happy. But going back and forth between "scientific consensus" and "measurements show" ten times in a day is not what I would consider normal editing. The fact that I think that one of those two is not supported by the sources is beside the point -- I have not edited the page. Nor is 3RRNB appropriate; should I roll a die and pick one user to report even though no individual user has gone past 2RR? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Please also include [191] in this discussion, and thereby reopen the discussion there.  It is a report from the Edit warring noticeboard that is less than 1 week old, at which no action was taken regarding QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (jps).  At Ken Ham a week ago, as soon as page protection was lifted, User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV five times put an idea he/she proposed on the page.  The four restorations of the idea were each added in from 2 to 11 minutes.  This is a talk page with more than a dozen editors involved.  Here is a perm link that includes the talk page discussion.  The part of the talk page discussion regarding the proposed idea occurs between 20:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC) and 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC).  QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV could not or would not defend his/her edits against questions about the sourcing, or the acceptance of any other editors to add the content.  Once the page was protected, User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV lost interest in discussing the proposed idea on the talk page, which is part of why the 3RR should be reopened, as this is new evidence that the edits were edit warring.  In the edit warring report User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV explains that only two editors were involved, "He and I came to what I thought was a good compromise and then I tried to implement it in article space."  Actually, that 2nd editor was stating, "I don't recall other editors in the thread above expressing support for adding material like that...22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)".  FYI, here is the block log for this editor, the most recent block being dated 2014-03-06.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth saying, but I might as well explain my side. As I view it, it's not really a content dispute, but stylistic. jps and Ronz seem to me to be agressively anti-creationist in a way that is neither helpful nor encyclopedic and have been making contributions that are poor english and/or style. Phrases like "the facts are" and "Young Earth creationism is flatly contradicted by the scientific evidence" are things which need reverting on sight in my view.

On the talk page, though, both these editors claim they're correcting "errors" and fixing NPOV, but one of jps' few talk page contributions that "errors" needed fixing has not yet been followed up with an explanation as to what those alleged errors are.

Currently edit warring over whether the paragraph should be three sentences or two and WP:Easter egg links... GDallimore (Talk) 22:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This was somewhat useful. I didn't realize that GDallimore was not aware of my concern over WP:ASSERT. I have stated it explicitly on the talkpage now. I am wondering still what the concerns over poor English are. Is this a two people separated by a common language thing? Anyway, I wouldn't describe the current editing as "edit warring" in the classic sense because I don't see myself as battling anyone. I'm just trying to get the prose to work so that everyone is happy. jps (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

additional editor listed

• As per the edit warring report of last Sunday, [192] and the related talk page at [193] I am also listing gaba_p as part of a POV effort involved here.  On the edit warring report, gaba_p volunteers to support User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV; and on the talk page at Ken Ham these two editors repeatedly use WP:COMPETENCE as a tool to disparage those with whom they disagree.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the protocol here but this seems like a separate incident involving one of the editors in the case posted here. I'd create a new section and make your case or file a notice at WP:ANEW if that seems more appropriate to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• The editor listed here has no history of edit warring, so I see no foundation for your suggestion.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• I thought the same thing -- that QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV has a suspicious number of editors who support him and use similar language -- but when I looked into it I decided that it is just a coincidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is pretty clear that when QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV makes a bold edit and someone reverts him, he pretty much always reverts back, and he is usually willing to go as far as 2RR. Now I realize that WP:BRD is not a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. Like his continued incivility, this isn't a blockable offense but it is annoying. That being said, ANI doesn't deal with "annoying", and my actual complaint of a slow-motion edit war seems to have resolved itself, so this is looking like a good candidate for a "nothing to do here" close. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:48, 6 April 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.

current Flag of Russia is false it needs to be restored to the original

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 restore the original colours of the flag per http://www.constitution.ru/symbols/flag.htm (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/f/f3/20120812153730%21Flag_of_Russia.svg)

see official server of russia http://xn--h1alffa9f.xn--p1ai/main/symbols/gsrf3_2.html http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/medium/41d2904109f3781c14d6.jpg

from kremlin http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/medium/41d2904109f3781c14d6.jpg

from kremlin http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/medium/41d290410ca3621bd47e.jpg

i tried taking up at the talkpage but a user said it does not belong there, the flag is here at wikipedia not at commons! and the commons version i tried to set up a rfc but after two months, it not getting much attention. 95.199.198.62 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article here seems to have the right colors, so there isn't anything to "fix" here. As for Commons, that isn't our concern and we have no authority to tell them what to do. They may also have old and new versions for all I know. Most important, if there is an RFC there, then that is the venue you need to pursue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

the file used on english wikipedia is on english wikipedia NOT COMMONS ! and the shade of colours are wrong, not the coulours, you misunderstood me

i also proved several sources for the original shades, which the current shade of colours lack 95.199.198.62 (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Then upload a better version. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We do have a version of File:Flag of Russia.svg on en.wikipedia; it's a mirror of the image from Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

yes well they do not use the commons image at english wikipedia they use the "mirror" or whatever, and i cannot "do have a version of" because it is "one of the 100 most-used files on the English Wikipedia"

and policy FORBIDS overwritting the original file ! 95.199.198.62 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you just give it a different title? I'm no expert on uploading files (obviously). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As i said a new file will hardly replace the original, "one of the 100 most-used files on the English Wikipedia"

and admins should do their job and follow wikipedia policy which states that it is FORBIDEN to overwrite the original file,

so what we need here is to restore the original ( see File history and click revert, am unable to do that myself) 95.199.198.62 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked all the links with the flag of Russia in it and found all of them containing all the right colors. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 22:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, what would need to be done here is to continue the discussion on the talk page on Commons (presumably started by you) if there is a legitimate concern about the current colors being incorrect. There appears to be significant discussion prior to the change to the current version in August 2012; your proposed revert does not appear to have support. An administrator here won't unilaterally change the local copy here to a version that is different than the Commons version, especially if there isn't any apparent consensus to do so. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start it, an IP did so. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 22:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My comment was directed to the IP. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Kinu! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 22:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone changed the colors months ago after finding an official document, see Commons:File_talk:Flag_of_Russia.svg#Found_official_colors. The IP complains at end of that same page. This looks like a content issue, with most sources completely in Russian language. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:57, 5 April 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 editing my comments.

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:Lugnuts has over and over edited my comments, admittedly they are my comments on his talk page, but I do not believe it is right or within policy for him to edit my comments even on his page. I have asked nicely [194], removed my comments [195], and added a note saying I was not the one that edited them [196] but every time User:Lugnuts has reverted me. I did revert him once [197] but realised to do it again would approach edit warring. Can someone please tell me what I can do to keep my comments from being edited? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• You left a comment, he hatted it, it is his talk page. I'm getting the feeling he is saying "Please stay off my talk page" and you aren't getting the hint. If he is striking and hatting your comments on his talk page, the solution would simply be to stay off his talk page. Otherwise, it would just look like you are stirring the pot. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I went to YOUR talk page and Lugnut has made it pretty clear that he doesn't want you on his talk page. We give a lot of flexibility as to how someone uses their user talk page, as long as it doesn't directly violate BLP or similar policies. In this case, his use looks fine. He has made it clear he doesn't want you to use his talk page, so stop it or you will end up getting blocked for hounding. If you have to put an official notice on his page, like you did for this ANI discussion, that is fine (notice he didn't protest?). Otherwise, just stay away. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to stay away, and I did after he asked, except for him editing my comments, I am not OK with him editing what I said, I am fine with him deleting it, but I am not OK with being misrepresented. Also why would he do this revert [198]? CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what happened. You say he edited your comments. He did not edit your comments, he struck them out. Those are two different things, and have different implications on Wikipedia. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

He might have reverted back to maintain the continuity of the discussion, but even then he said stay away from his talk page. What he DIDN'T do is refactor your comments. You just need to stay away and the problem is solved in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)CombatWombat42, as the others have mentioned, Lugnuts is not editing your comments. He is striking them out because he does not want you posting on his talk page. You are not being misrepesented, you are edit-warring over his, entirely appropriately, striking your comments after asking you not to post on his talk page and you did so anyway. The only action needed here is for you to back away from Lugnuts before this ANI backfires on you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, what is wrong with wiki-youngsters today??? Of course striking another's comments is editing them -- Wikipedia:STRIKE clearly states "When editing your own previous remarks in talk pages," (emphasis mine). Lugnuts can remove the comments but it is inappropriate to strike them out, as that as understood as the original author withdrawing the comment after someone has replied to them. NE Ent 02:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to say anything but... from what I remember of this in the past, another editor may only strike out another's comments when they have permission or have been asked to do so.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Gee, I must be breaking da rulez then, because I do it all the time when necessary, for example here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't have rules to break, but yeah...that looks to be a behavioral guideline violation indeed. If you do it and come right out and snub the guideline here...what are you expecting, an award for being able to get away with it and advertise it as well? Odd that editors can be told point blank they shouldn't be doing something and come right out and basically say "screw that".--Mark Miller (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If it looks like that to you, maybe you're not looking at it right. Policies (and even more so guidelines) describe, not prescribe, accepted community standards of behaviour. See WP:IAR for more information. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And to be specific, both Refractoring and the Strike out pages are "how to pages" not guidelines. However, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines does state, per WP:TPO: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request".--Mark Miller (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I stand corrected, although it seems to me simple WP:COMMONSENSE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've asked this person THREE times (one, two, three) not to post on my talkpage, but he continues to do so. This user also has no clue on what a db-nocontent tag is actually meant to be used for. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to look through the talk page history to figure out what came first the chicken or the egg...frankly all I can say is this, when an editor asks another editor to stop commenting on their talk page, generally it is considered to be baiting if you either do something like...edit their comments, or try to get the last word in and say something that must be replied to. Just try this. Remove all of their comments and just leave it at that. If they continue to add comments and you have to continue to remove them...that is edit warring.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and what's not clear is why Lugnuts struck them through rather than deleting in the first place. Striking gives the impression that the author has withdrwawn the post, which would be misleading. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 6 April 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 user has clearly seen the statement that his editing of my comments is wrong [199], but has not corrected it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed. I didn't see the striking as such a big deal since it was on his talk page, but it is unstruck and hatted. Now stay off his talk page, he has already asked you multiple times. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:GalaxyFighter55 - Aggressiveness and racism

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.

---

For the past few days, I've been trying to make some revisions to the List of Digimon Fusion episodes (season 1), and GalaxyFighter55 keeps revising the page to remove all of my editing work. At first I understood why, as he wanted the UK dates to be cited '(Come back with reference proof supporting your UK aid ate airings and then it can stay.)'. Upon citing these dates and names, he reversed his decision. '(It doesnt matter anyways, the section is for UNITED STATES airdates, as clearly stated above. Therefore, even if it did air before us, it will not be shown.)'. I've tried to approach him kindly and ask him to keep his word, but his latest 'revision' had this response '(why does this mater to you? This is the United States airdates slot, not the UK slot. Fuck the UK)'

I have tried to handle this calmly and politely, but when he keeps undoing my work and spews verbal abuse towards me, this is the point where I'm not going to let this act go unnoticed or unpunished. Can you please either give him a warning, or block him from editing the page, or suspend his account, whichever you see fit.

Kind regards,Wyraachur

Have you tried discussing this dispute on the article talk page? There you might hear from other editors so it wouldn't be a Him Vs. Me situation. I think you need other editors participating in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The verbal abuse is not acceptable, but it's not wise to term it as "racism". Our wonderful United Kingdom is not a race, it is merely a union of convenience we've had with our Scottish neighbours for the last few hundred years, that may end up being dissolved soon anyway. Similarly if I said "down with the USA!", that wouldn't be racist, just rude and inane. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss this on the article page, but the guy doesn't want to listen to reason. Videos can be used to cite information, and what I've linked to has both airdate information and episode titles. I'm getting fed up of having to keep revising the page because he won't admit he's in the wrong about this. Wyraachur 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Wyraachur ~ Being Ridiculous about a edit

I've been editing this page ever since 2013, and he comes in claiming that the UK should be added. I know I previously made a rude comment, but I was mad and doidnt know what to say. I am sorry for that, but simply putting a video with nothing on it is not a source, and you cannot put first English date since Mayllasia casted the anime in English FIRST. Kind regards, --GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, you know what? Why bother. If he insists about a dumb edit, then I'm not going to continue. Do what you want with the page, unsourced hobo. --GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The rudeness wasn't necessary. I've handled myself calmly and composed, and all you've done is acted like a child. I'm just glad you've stopped before it got much worse. Wyraachur (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

GalaxyFighter55: Acting like a child

I apologise for bringing this up again, but GalaxyFighter55's childish and immature way at handling things is starting to get to me, as is his threats and attempts at intimidation. Can you please resolve this?

Wyraachur (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Y'all (GalaxyFighter55 and Wyraachur, listed alphabetically) should be using Talk:List of Digimon Fusion episodes (season 1) to discuss this. (I'll even start the discussion for you.) Long term, you're going to run into editors who act childishly from time to time and part of being mature is learning to dealt with it maturely -- I recommend User:Heimstern/Ignoring_incivility or Other duck. NE Ent 16:52, 6 April 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: Pdheg

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

Please consider the editing and conduct of User: Pdheg (was PuttuHegde). He has been renaming multiple places in Karnataka, India without discussion. The one move that was taken to Requested moves and discussed was not successful – see Talk:Sagara,_Karnataka. He was then asked to discuss moves before he made them, and has refused to do so on the grounds that it his names are ‘Government of India names’ [200]. This is a position he has maintained since, despite the fact that there is no government policy on names and spellings in Roman script. After the Sagara incident, a general discussion of his actions was raised at the Noticeboard for India related topics. On the basis of this discussion I and some other editors moved back some of the unilateral renames pending case by case discussion, but they have only been reverted again with no attempt at further discussion. Thus the move / revert / discuss cycle does not work with this editor – requests to raise a discussion and get consensus are not heeded by him. Reversions of his work have been reverted back, his reasons being typically 1. he has been there and knows that he is correct, 2. quotes of cherry picked government websites which he then asserts are an official name, 3. some confused and unreferenced assertions as to what local pronunciation is. All this is done with little reference to wikipedia policies and practices including WP:Name. His last comments to me on my talk page indicate that he continues to believe he is justified and has no need for consensus or discussion.

The move of the former Ramanagara to the current Ramanagar, Karnataka was made with the claim that Ramanagar was the ‘official name’ [201]. In the following edit, he removed the reference to the district government website http://www.ramanagara.nic.in in which both the district and the town are referred to as Ramanagara (and he marked it as a minor edit, as he has done for many of his other arguable moves). The move of Kundapura to Kundapur, Karnataka with an unnecessary disambiguation was probably made because he could not move it to Kundapur.

Most of the renaming he has made have been dropping of the final ‘a’ in place names to correspond to Hindi pronunciation. In Kannada, unlike Hindi, most names end in a vowel, usually ‘a’. The other group of his changes, of the sound written as ‘th’ in south India to the ‘t’ of north India, again brings it in line with Hindi (e.g. at Amaravati_River). The reasons he gives for his preferred names are variable, but none are in accordance with WP policy; examples can be seen in this message diff after one of his reverts to a page move, and a different reason on this talk page after its last revert [202] . His statement at Talk: Sagara that the Kannada name ‘ಸಾಗರ' is pronounced ‘Sagar’ suggests a major lack of knowledge of the language and of the region he is working on, and confusion with Hindi.

Messages to him can be seen on his current talk page [203] and there are also redacted comments made prior to this, at [204]. Some other relevant messages are at [User_talk:Imc] and later.

I understand that this may be referred back as a content dispute, but in light of Pdheg’s unwillingness to provide useful evidence why his views should stand, while still reverting instead of discussing, as for instance at Talk: Kundapura, I’m raising it here first, since he is quite willing to revert without attempting to reach a consensus. Imc (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC) (first added at the time given previously on this line, then overwritten by User:AutosohdohmeeLives! at 14:18, then copied in again by Imc (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

The final “a” in place names is added only in the southern few districts of Karnataka, which were under Madras Presidency. For example, these districts use “Madhavapura” instead of “Madhavapur”. This pattern is not seen in rest of Karnataka state, contrary to what user Imc claims as Kannada names. User Imc is trying to push this pattern to rest of Karnataka towns and cities, which is incorrect. The whole of India(as well as Northern Karnataka and Coastal Karnataka) uses “pur” as in Kolhapur,Haldipur, Sultanpur, Hamidpur, Berhampur, Bijapur etc. and “nagar” as in Ahmednagar, Itanagar, Gandhinagar etc. As I mentioned earlier the pattern of using “pura”, “nagara” instead of “pur” and “nagar” is limited to a handful of southern districts of Karnataka. It is definitely not applicable to the rest of the Karnataka state, which was not part of Madras Presidency. Moreover, under Common Name policy of Wikipedia, to bring these places in accordance with naming patterns of India my actions are justified. User Imc is selectively considering a few websites as officlal websites and does not what to consider central government websites for official reference. Pdheg (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

Pdheg, any reason you didn't respond to Imc's queries on your talk page?

Secondly, your understanding of common name isn't quite correct -- Bearcat explained it well at Talk:Bangalore#Its_not_Bangalore_anymore -- you might want to review that and, if you have more questions, I'd suggest asking at the teahouse. NE Ent 18:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, I have responded to Imc's queries on his/her talk page. Though I might have been on the wrong side in some instances, my moves on most accounts have conformed with common name. User Imc's claims do not apply evenly to the entire state of Karnataka as it has diversity. What may be applicable to Imc's region of Karnataka may not be applicable to my region of the state and the same cannot be addressed under common name simply because a few editors from Imc's region work in unison to influence the decision on Wikipedia. When a place is spelled differently by people of two different regions, which spelling do we consider on Wikipedia? The one used locally or the one used by people outside the region (with more wiki editors to vote for)? common name does not address this situation effectively. The page moves initiated by me are as per the spelling used locally and by state/federal governments. Now, Imc has reservations against the moves because the user thinks that the way names of places are spelled in his/her region is the standard for Karnataka state, which is incorrect. Pdheg (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

Sorry about the first question, forgot to to check for that style of interaction. To answer the second question, what governments use is not the basis on Wikipedia works, it's what English language reliable sources use most frequently. NE Ent 20:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have moved only those pages of places that I belong to and I am sure about how they are spelled by people from that region. Northern and Coastal regions of Karnataka state use naming patterns identical to that of rest of India. While user Imc's claims are pertinent to the English usage of the user's region, those claims in no way hold good for English usage in rest of the India. In one other discussion with user Imc, I have pointed out that we cannot consider the majority opinion as the right opinion on Wikipedia. Since any editor is able to edit articles, a coordinated move by a set of editors has the potential to entirely change content of articles and dump the true information. Pdheg (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding a few fundamental points regarding how Wikipedia works. "What may be applicable to Imc's region of Karnataka may not be applicable to my region of the state...When a place is spelled differently by people of two different regions, which spelling do we consider on Wikipedia?" WP:COMMONNAME actually does make this quite clear: the "common name in English". It might not be yours, it might not be his, and it might not be the "official" name, but the most commonly used name in English sources as a whole is the one that is used. "we cannot consider the majority opinion as the right opinion on Wikipedia" - No, we use WP:CONSENSUS, and we spell out how consensus works in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - including WP:COMMONNAME. If a majority of sources say the name of X is X, then Wikipedia must describe X as being named X, even if the people of X prefer to call if Y. "a coordinated move by a set of editors has the potential to entirely change content of articles and dump the true information" - "True information" is not what Wikipedia is about. Verfiable information is. The standard of inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If everyone knows X is true, and even if X is actually true, if the sources describe it as Y, then Wikipedia must describe it as Y. In this particular case, even though (to use an example already used here) the official name of a certain city is Bengaluru, and the people there call it Bengaluru, since the majority of English sources call the city Bangalore, Wikipedia must title the article as Bangalore. That's simply the way Wikipedia works, and that is the correct way for Wikipedia to work (indeed, unless the encyclopedia is to descend into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH-laden chaos, it's the only way Wikipedia can work). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger, As per your explanation of WP:COMMONNAME and "common name in English", my edits already conform to WP:COMMONNAME. User Imc is for using standard Kannada Transliteration system (--see Talk:Sagara,_Karnataka) rather than common English names, which I have used. It may please be noted that Government of India and Government of Karnataka are already using common English names for which I have provided links to Government websites for reference on relevant Talk pages. Pdheg (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC))

It is to be noted that India was ruled by British for centuries until 1947. All City, Town and Village names in India are already in common English except a handful places such as Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, which are renamed by Indian Government. All state Governments and Federal Government in India use English names as they were used during British rule. I have been insisting using those names used by the Government for centuries (common English names) while user Imc and a few other Wikipedia editors in India are pressing for using spellings that make the places sound like Kannada language pronunciation. User Imc does not want to consider Government names as standard because the user thinks that they are pronounced differently in local language. Of late, the user has been giving Kannada and Sanskrit language references to support his/her claims. Kindly go through all the references provided by user Imc above to see how the user is pushing to use Kannada names rather than common English names.Pdheg (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC))

<-----

Pdheg, you provide an interesting and ever widening list of reasons why you believe the final ‘a’ is not used in most Karnataka place names. However this is not the place to discuss it, that belongs in discussions on place names.

You have stated above that you understand WP naming policy, but you then go on to say ‘’Moreover, under Common Name policy of Wikipedia, to bring these places in accordance with naming patterns of India my actions are justified.’’ Having first stated that different places in Karnataka have different naming patterns, you now claim Wikipedia naming policy justifies renaming places in India to meet a claimed Indian pattern. Absolutely not. The naming policy requires that each name be justified as the common name. It has nothing to do with whether naming patterns exist for India or not. If you think that there is a ‘naming pattern of India’ and that it should be policy, then you are welcome to try and get in codified in line with other Wikipedia policy.

Another matter is that Wikipedia is a group effort. You appear convinced of your position and your attitude in the one group discussion that there has been (India noticeboard ) to state your position then make no further response. This is not how Wikipedia works. If your actions are disputed, then you have justify your case with reliable references and not just by your assertions as to how you have been there and know it to be so. At the previous discussion you stated your case, then failed to respond to other comments or the solution I put forward, but then have reversed the one action I took two weeks later for its implementation. This was renaming Kundapura, even though it was with justification for my actions, which you then reversed once again with your ‘I was there and I know better’ justification.

You make irrelevant arguments that confuse the issue. Contrary to your claims, neither at Talk: Sagara nor later at Talk: Kundapura have I suggested that Wikipedia place names should be transliterated from Kannada. You have just added a reference to me mentioning Sanskrit, presumably to do with Matrika? What has it to do with this? You need to address the subject and the arguments made by other parties.

Finally, you have said that ‘a few editors from Imc's region work in unison to influence the decision on Wikipedia’. This sounds as though it could be an accusation of illicit conduct – is it, if so can you provide some detail? Imc (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Imc, any reason you didn't provide reference to the complete conversation on Talk pages? The links you have provided highlight select old conversations and do not show all conversations on the Talk page. See here (Talk:Sagara,_Karnataka) for the conversation where you talk about Kannada names. Pdheg (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC))

• The main problem here is that the user fails to form consensus and makes changes unilaterally, which is contrary to the spirit of editing on Wikipedia. This is not a discussion about whether article names should have an a added to the name or not. It is about working together in accordance with wikipedia policy. I feel that the user:Pdheg, in my previous interactions, fails to work with fellow editors. Gsingh (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Eddaido

Further eyes needed here, please. A while back I blocked this editor for harassment of another editor, User:SamBlob - the proceedings can be seen at User_talk:Eddaido#Edit_summaries_used_for_personal_attacks (note the final sentence - post-block - where Eddaido clearly promises not to change their behaviour). Now, Eddaido has been reverting their edits on another article with uncollaborative summaries here. This issue was flagged up on Eddaido's talkpage at User_talk:Eddaido#Yet_more_problems_with_your_edit_summaries.

Whilst these are not actually personal attacks, they are clearly not optimal, especially as the edits that Eddaido was restoring are not even particularly good; this, for example, is ungrammatical and confusing to the reader. I do not believe that SamBlob should be on the receiving end of this nonsense for improving an article. I am hesitant to block again (though I wouldn't object to it), but am wondering if a one-way IBAN or similar might be the way of fixing this problem. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see IBAN as the way to go here, because Eddaido's behaviour is his problem, not SamBlob's – nor is it limited to SamBlob. It's long term, it's childish and a competent editor can work out that it's not acceptable in this community, to the point that it's solved by removal of either the behaviour or the editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I suggested a one-way IBAN; i.e. Eddaido should would be prevented from reverting SamBlob's edits, using edit summaries to belittle, etc. I'm thinking WP:ROPE here, but it is fairly clear that Eddaido does not grasp the concept of collaborative editing. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Having dealt with Eddaido a lot in the past, I value his knowledge and often ask him questions. Even then, he's often extremely rude and shows very little understanding for any viewpoint than his own. SamBlob just happens to have a little less patience with Eddaido's behavioral issues. I don't want to see a permanent block but I can't fathom how to better his editing style since he solidly rejects any input.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Eddaido loosed off the latest volley at SamBlob in response to corrective, constructive, and collaborative edits by SamBlob (prior to which the text, shaped by Eddaido, contained an inadvertent error which SamBlob corrected). IIRC, Eddaido has shown ownership tendencies in the past, and if WP:BATTLE continues to be the default response when users Eddaido happens to dislike attempt active collaboration instead of leaving whatever Eddaido writes untouched, that's a problem. Like Mr.choppers I'd rather not see Eddaido blocked again. I think they're a valuable contributor insofar as they do grunt work on articles about such as old cars and planes. I favour whatever would be the minimum action for the desired effect on Eddaido. The one-way IBAN is a good suggestion if Eddaido's behaviour has been confined to interactions with SamBlob. My sole reservation: articles of the kind both Eddaido and SamBlob seem drawn to would be deprived of Eddaido's knowledgeable input.

@Andy: If the behaviour is long-term and also relates to users other than SamBlob, diffs would help here. Writegeist (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Some earlier examples of how Eddaido has corresponded with editors other than me:

To User:Swarm, 14 September 2011:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=450430674&oldid=450424581
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=next&oldid=450435825
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=next&oldid=450436797
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=next&oldid=450439128

To User:Moonriddengirl and User:Ironholds:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=515715669
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=515771657
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=515938293
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=516114706
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=516125756
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=516235579
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=516560060
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=517096295

More might be forthcoming.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Participation here by Eddaido would also be helpful, I think. Writegeist (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC) (adding) For instance, what is the meaning of this revert's edsum ("Poorly judged. So it is war again, You've been let out of jail after three months!")? Writegeist (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

COI that might need more than COIN

The other day, I ran into an article on the new owners of Newsweek. Very long and interesting story short, they are also owned by the company that owns the International Business Times, and are religiously-affiliated. Later that day, I decided to clean up some of the page at Olivet University, which was founded by the owners of the two companies. I ended up removing some text and was reverted twice by Rr2002, who appeared out of the blue. None of this would raise an alarm, except for the fact that they added back in what appears to be promotional text, which also occurred with Glory4321, Syl.White, and Seashellpicking, all of whom have edited that article and done similar things. Clrwiki99 has also engaged in this kind of behavior on the talk page, removing text while adding some more information (I am less convinced in this person, but them coming out of nowhere is what is concerning me).

Fast forward to today when I decided to check up on some of the other articles that are on here that are related to IBT Media. On that page, I added a COI template on the IBT page, which was mysteriously removed in this edit by 38.104.70.190. On this page, I suspect that WoodenTree might also be related to IBT, based on their actions, as well as 66.233.11.67. On the Newsweek article, as well as the IBT ones, 209.66.114.182 is also a participant here, adding information to these articles. On the International Business Times article, 38.104.70.190 has also removed text without explanation (although not to the degree of the above users). Finally, on the now-redirect for Etienne Uzac, Serendipity133 and 209.66.114.182 have engaged in promotion. The IP even replaced Huffington Post links with plot summaries from IBT (the Mother Jones article mentions IBT ripping off others' stories, so replacing links isn't out of the question).

Now, besides the above evidence, what leads me to believe that these are all related is a few different things. One of the IPs traces to around New York City (headquarters of IBT and Newsweek), and could very well be from the residences of staffers. Another IP traces to the D.C. area, although I am not so sure about that one. In terms of the first users that I mentioned before, they almost exclusively edit Olivet University's article, and I suspect that these accounts belong to members of the church that is part of IBT. Almost all of the expansions to Olivet are made by users like this, with a few established Wikipedians thrown into the mix, and there are no IPs that trace to the Bay Area (or anywhere else that is concerning, for that matter). Based on what the above article said, and the fact that at least two of the user names have "glory" and "serendipity" in them furthers my conviction that these are probably church-related persons. Finally, whenever the users remove text, it is either not done with an edit summary, or performed while removing information that could be considered compromising to the company or would link the groups together to a religious organization.

I would be interested to see what Guanxi thinks of this, as they have also edited some of these articles before, and might be able to provide another take on what I found above. I am also going to notify the editors who have edited recently, because not all of these editors are active anymore. What do others think, as I was hesitant to put this on COIN because it involves so many articles and persons, and I would like to have a wider body look at this in order to make a decision on where to go from here (article protection, etc.). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically, a good summary of the above, as I realized I wrote a lot of text: There are many suspicious accounts that seem to be advocating for this company's holdings, and I would like for someone else to take a look at it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not convinced there's a basis for the COI tag. I see many articles in which there is suspicious activity of the kind you mention. Perhaps I've missed something, but unless one or more of these IPs is from a related entity, and have performed significant editing, I don't think the tag is warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I do admit that obnoxious edits like this[205] are worrisome. However, unless the article was authored by an SPA and is pretty much an autobiography, or unless there is an admitted COI editor openly editing the page, a COI tag just doesn't seem appropriate. All that said, your points are well taken and all these articles should get additional attention. Coretheapple (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to remove the tags, but I guess they were more of a knee-jerk reaction after reading the article, especially since the article made it clear that promotional work on the part of IBT-related entities was possible. What would you suggest in the meantime, as I think protection of some of these articles is warranted, or at least more people watch the pages. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think more eyes are definitely required. You could always apply for semiprotection, obviously. Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't logged in since the above was posted. In case anyone looks back at this: My take is that IBT and related articles are clearly being edited and protected by people advocating IBT's owner's POV. Check out my edits and comments on talk pages for those articles for plenty of examples. I ran out of time to deal with it. See IBT Media, International Business Times, and Olivet University, and this 3RR report. guanxi (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

ADITYA NEHRA

This editor has created an article Major General (Retd) GD Bakshi which is copyvio and tagged for speedy deletion many times, but author is removing tags again and again. He is vandalizing after warnings too. I am not an admin, Please do respond him. Thanks A.Minkowiski (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• You didn't notify them via the template at the top of this page. It looks like Cindy is already aware of the situation and handling it on their talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I placed template here on user talk page, not on the top but in middle A.Minkowiski (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption disruption yet again

We've got more incoming disruption at India Against Corruption from the same meatpuppets/SPAs/role accounts that have previously and tendentiously been pushing a POV and issuing legal threats. I'm really rather fed up of this place at the moment and can't be bothered digging out diffs but if someone is around who knows the history then please could you do the necessary. Plenty in the archives here, and stuff at mediation, with OTRS etc. I have reported it to RFPP but that can take hours and this is election season in India.

You'll see some recent back-and-forth on my talk page history and at that of TheWikiIndian (who is blocked for 2 weeks right now but only the tip of the iceberg). - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I protected the page when I noticed the edit warring a few minutes ago - hadn't seen this or RPP. This is the second time in a few weeks that this page has been protected. The elections are 12 May 2014 and I expect a number of attempts to use Wikipedia to promote candidates and parties. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the problems will continue after the elections because this is a massive misunderstanding of how we operate. They've been invited on numerous occasions to create India Against Corruption (organisation) or similar if they think they can satisfy WP:GNG but they never bother. Which is because up to now it hasn't satisfied GNG and they know it. Anyway, I'm gone & it is no longer my problem. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a gross distortion of the facts. IAC is an apolitical organisation. We care a fig for elections. FYI, yhe elections are on 9.April.2014 onwards. It is Sitush who is promoting political candidates Arvind Kejriwal (who was a part of IAC but is now a politician) and Anna Hazare (who was never a part of IAC, but is endorsing candidates for a fee). On 27.March 2014 the leading Indian newspaper "The Hindu" published this [206]. Sitush now stands exposed and refuses to discuss this news report . Accordingly IAC demands that all references in the article titled "India Against Corruption" to Anna HAzare / "Team Anna" are deleted within 36 hours. Mr. Sarbajit Roy and Mr. Veeresh Malik are the trademark and copyright holders for all aspects connected to the brandname "India Against Corruption". 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The article has been fully protected. Jim1138 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The above looks like a "chilling effect threat" to me. Probably the IP should get a time out for that. BMK (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Please read the news report first and the retraction by the newspaper. Does Wikipedia still justify IMPERSONATION of our body? Can any Admin explain WHY Sitush dropped out of MEDIATION when he couldn't justify his impersonating edits ? 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
      • What happens after 36 hours when we don't comply with your demands? (Incidentally holding trademarks doesn't prevent the organization from being discussed without its permission, and, at least in US law, one cannot copyright a name.) BMK (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
        • We have many options open to us. This is NOT a legal threat. 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Discuss us freely, but don't allow IMPERSONATIUON of us on your website. Impersonation is a contravention of WMF's "Terms of Use". 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
            • • Impersonation of who? You're not a named account, you're an IP. We have no way of knowing who you are, so there's no way to prevent "impersonation". Make an account, show OTRS some proof that you represent an organization, and if it's verified, then if someone claiming to be from the organization turns out to be an impersonator, something can be done. Until then... Beside, who are claiming is impersonating the IAC? Sitush? Simply because he's written an article based on facts from reliable sources that you don't like? You don't and can't (and won't) control what's written about you here, so if that's what you're after, it's not gonna happen. BMK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Just to assist you folks. On 27.March.2014 the venerable Indian Newspaper "The Hindu" deleted a news story that Mr Hazare was with IAC and fully published our rejoinder that Mr. Anna Hazare was never a part of IAC, and after confirming this from Mr. Hazare. The link is above. 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My earlier comment here was removed by someone. As for discussing freelym, we've done that for nine months and you "lost", for want of a better word. It is things like this that have put me off Wikipedia, ie: clueless contributors & the fact that the WP systems mean one has to put up with them for such a prolonged time. Ending the ability to edit anonymously would be a start. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, regarding IP editing. BMK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IP, howe many more times must you idiots be told that the article does not say Hazare was a part of the IAC organisation that you represented. He was a part of the IAC movement and a member of a committee that was popularly identified with that movement and the term (not the organisation) IAC. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for evasion - I think it's pretty clear that, whether sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this is a continuation of the usual IAC disruption. Since there's clearly no reasoning with this person/these people, blocking on sight seems to be the only strategy that will work. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• @ Sitush: it wasn't the IP who removed your earlier post — I think that must have been an accident. The sock you mentioned in the removed post has been indeffed, along with another one who just removed the header to this section from the ANI TOC[207]. Possibly more interestingly, the more established editor TheWikiIndian has made legal threats and called you a paid editor who published inaccurate information in Arvind Kejriwal as a paid edit to solicit votes for Mr. Kejrijwal's party and to confuse the public. I think you recognize that, Sitush — do you have the link to that blog again? — and Dougweller is in it too, he and the paid editor Sitush jointly vandalised Mr.Roy's Wikipedia bio-entry. Well, it is April 1. These abuses by Sitush and admins have been reported to Michelle Paulson and Philippe Beaudette, TheWikiIndian states. I only blocked him for two weeks for egregious personal attacks, which he repeated on his page after the block, so I removed talkpage access. But if anybody wants to indef him pending retraction of the legal threats, I won't stand in the way. There may be multiple reasons — a checkuser of TheWikiIndian vs the IP posting in this thread would be nice — but anyway, I started with two weeks. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC).

• TheWikiIndian's claims are just bizarre. For example, I've supported deletion of Gopal Rai, Santosh Koli, Naveen Jaihind and Hemant kumar PY - those all relate to the Aam Aadmi Party that I'm suposedly being paid to support here and they're just the examples showing in my 7-day watchlist (others went before then). There is a lot of abuse of Wikipedia going on at the moment in the name of the Indian general election but I have absolutely nothing to gain from favouring one group or another: I'm not Indian, I'm not resident in that country, I've never voted in any government or local government election in any country, I'm not a member of any political association anywhere, etc. My only connection to India is a great-great-grandparent who was born in Bangalore to English parents who may have been very minor officials in the Raj or clerks to traders. She was back in England by the time she married, aged 21. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Community Ban Proposal for User:HRA1924

It's pretty obvious from the last several ANI threads about IAC that HRA1924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated sock/meatpuppets are NOTHERE (or are here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS). I'm not generally a fan of community bans, but given the persistent sockpuppetry, legal threats, and refusal to understand how Wikipedia works, I think the ability to block and revert on sight would be a significant net positive for the encyclopedia.

• Support as proposer 207.38.156.219 (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is, we're not sure whether it is the same person or various meatpuppets. There are allegedly 29,000 people on the IAC mailing list hosted via riseup.net. Since it is an activist group and communicates in large part using electronic methods, I'd guess that there'll be quite a few different people acting in a co-ordinated manner here. We know that they've used open proxies here before, so things are really messy. I think admins just need to be aware that, for example, as soon as someone mentions paid editing/impersonation/libel/Indian legal system etc in connection with IAC then they're probably of the same tendentious origin and should be blocked at that point.

I've had some people in good standing from India contacting me about this: they would like something to be done that stops the torrent of clueless stuff coming here from the organisation. But they dare not get involved because they are in the country & so there are issues re: reprisals as well as the legal system. It should be borne in mind that practically anyone can open a case in India by filing a First Information Report - although that doesn't constitute a formal charge (as far as I am aware, but I'm no lawyer), it is a matter of public record & so can affect employment etc.

Ha! I've just noticed my very own AN is showing in the edit header for this page. As Bowie would say, we can be "heroes", just for one day ... - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On my talk page another IAC sock claims " 1,03,000+ edits 832+ still working accounts" while calling editors chutiyas.[208]. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is he - 1 limb of the HRA1924 network. Can we discuss this sensibly without being banned and blocked ? FYI, I've been on Wikipedia for 9+ years, 1,03,000+ edits, and 833+ working user accounts. The HRA1924 "team" had 47+ years at Wikipedia and 6,00,000+ edits between us. And also FYI, we hardly ever edit India-centric articles. I only called Sitush thatTrangDocVan (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not while y'all are still making legal threats (saying "this is not a legal threat" doesn't make it not a legal threat), baseless accusations, and personal attacks, no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Now there's an insteresting concept. We could deal with this coordination/canvasing via the authorized mechanisms laid out in WP:EEML or one of the related ArbCom cases. Yes I know this makes me the poster child for an attack by members of IAC (which ironically is trying to corrupt the wikipedia decision process) and for being an an ArbCom groupie, but as I recall this is the 4th or 5th time I've seen the topic come up so I consider it time to start taking hard actions against the instigators of wikidrama. Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, we are being told that there is a very large network of editors - 833+ (more than a few hours ago) not including blocked editors, working together to edit Wikipedia. This sounds not good. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently looking into this matter. I've blocked additional accounts and will continue to investigate affected pages. FYI, here's a similar description at User:Turnitinpro. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, crumbs. Legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus. Support. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Elockid, anything new to report? Hasteur? Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked additional IPs they've been using as well as some more accounts. I think we can expect some diminished activity on the affected pages. I am keeping an eye on the affected pages daily in case the disruption resumes. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as one of many people who has got nowhere trying to politely explain to these editors how Wikipedia works and why legal threats and personal attacks are not appropriate. Hasteur also correctly observes that many of the principles at WP:EEML seem applicable to this issue. From observation and experience, every conversation with IAC editors has been identical - walls of text filled with threats and red herrings, followed by claims the legal threats aren't really threats, followed by a repeat of the legal threats and dramatic pronouncements of refusal to abide by Wikipedia's rules or terms of service. It is disruptive to a number of Indian articles, has a chilling effect on editing and is no doubt wearying for the editors who are the subject of attacks. Like many political advocates ahead of an election, the IAC editors seem less in building an encyclopedia and more interested in promoting causes and condemning their foes. Good luck to them, but an online encyclopedia is not the place for electioneering. Euryalus (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Token oppose by the viewpoint farm trying to re-litigate the base issue again.

OPPOSE as a proud member of India Against Corruption. The article on India Against Corruption is factually incorrect and a violation of WMF's Terms of Use. It also promotes the impersonation of the actual "India Against Corruption" (a Registered Trust and Trademark owners) who actually organised and financed the 2010- onward anti-corruption movement in India, by a set of imposters. The article is a WP:HOAX. The point to be noted is that (a) HRA1924 was a declared role account for "India Against Corruption" (please see the account's user page history). (b) Till 23 Nov 2013 the article was exclusively about the actual India Against Corruption (ie. us). (c) On 23.Nov.2013 Sitush merged "Team Anna" into the article. (d) from 17.Dec.2013 "India Against Corruption" availed every opportunity on Wikipedia to correct the text of the article. (e) finally the content dispute reached "MEDIATION" under Admin:Sunray - the 2 core issues were "Is IAC and Team Anna one and the same entity ?", "Are the defamatory remarks about Anna Hazare to be taken to other articles ?" (f) These issues were vigorously prosecuted by IAC and Sitush could not defend his edits or his sources, and dropped out of Mediation - a Mediation carried out under a Wikipedia nominated Mediator under Wikipedia's rules. (g) Accordingly, the content dispute is decided in IAC's favor, and the text of the article has to be changed to delete all references to Mr. Anna HAzare and his Team from it, and to restore it to the version dt. 23.Nov.2013 by "Bobrayner". (h) IAC has no quarrel with Wikipedia if this is done. Thanks. We have always been prepared to talk /discuss. 6 of the 7 members of HRA1924 role account are also WP editors with 6,00,000+ edits and 2,971 working accounts between us, and we do not edit disruptively or pose a threat to the Wikipedia projects eg. [209], [210]. DocVanTrang (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Comment - If as you say, "6 of the 7 members of HRA1924 role account are also WP editors with ... 2,971 working accounts between us" then you are operating a sock farm. There is surely no credible reason for 6 people to collectively create 2,971 separate Wikipedia accounts. Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Comment, we do not operate any sock farm nor do we POV push or actively collaborate on edits (generally, there are a few examples though where 2 or 3 have at a personal level outside of IAC). The vast majority of our edits are to clean up articles in subjects on which we have absolutely no interest. The reasons for having multiple accounts (collected over 48+ years of edits) are complex. One of these is certainly that our members are "above average" intellectually w.r.t the average Wikipedian, have a life outside of Wikipedia, don't want to waste time in "dramatics" or Notice Boards, And also because of the racist Anglo Saxon biases in the English Language Wikipedia, and the snide sexist nature of some editors who are never regulated by the community. If Sitush can call one of our female editors an idiot and ask her to "piss off", she can certainly snap back that he is a "chutiya" (idiot). Another reason is that most of our members tend to "Deletionism" and don't agree that Wikipedia should be "the sum of all crap". PS: IAC is non-political and does not stand for elections. DocVanTrang (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC) NB: Our editors also generally don't use more than 1 account at a time. Please see our track record on the India Against Corruption article. In fact during the entire time we engaged in DR from 17.Dec.2013 nobody from our side touched the article. We also disclosed our COI (on Day 1) and requested edits to be made for us, which Sitush kept blocking. DocVanTrang (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC) You are operating nearly 3,000 sock accounts because you are "above average intellectually w.r.t the average Wikipedian?" That's certainly a novel reason for socking, but unfortunately its not listed in WP:SOCK#LEGIT, which outlines when multiple accounts might be permitted. In addition, the policy on multiple accounts includes the following: "editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts. " If your contention is that these sock accounts are legitimate, please identify them. Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC) I am another part of HRA1924. Please do a Checkuser to verify it. We are not SOCKS. At least 300 of my own accounts are in use simultaneously - mainly in anti-vandalism and anti-pornography on the language projects and Commons. As a 12 year old Wikipedian, (and retired Administrator) I have no respect for the chutiyas who are admins today or draft these ridiculous policies. We're the good guys here. Wake up and smell the coffee. Don't waste your time over this IP. It will be discarded in 2 minutes and alloted to somebody else. The only thing which matters is Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same.. SOCKS can only be controlled with verified identities. The day that happens I'll gladly turn in 313 of my 321 accounts. 120.59.180.172 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "We are not SOCKS. At least 300 of my own accounts are in use simultaneously" - I think we can add WP:CIR to the list of problems here if this is truly believed as stated. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This isn't going away, this is mass socking, and they're either unwilling or unable to follow policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support although I think this isn't enough. A networked group of people editing Wikipedia is bound to be of detriment, as we have found before. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, primarily for the ability to revert on site postings of a banned editor (or their socks) BMK (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Peaches Geldof

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

---

The BBC is reporting the Peaches Geldof is dead. This is likely to attract a lot of edits- eyes would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Rolling coverage on Sky News at the moment. GiantSnowman 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It would seem the 5-year-olds are out in force today, so I've semi'd the page for a week. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:48, 7 April 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.

Proposed interaction ban between Vjmlhds and Levdr1lostpassword

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Let's just let these two continuously bicker and harass each other. Gloss • talk 22:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Vjmlhds (talk · contribs) and Levdr1lostpassword (talk · contribs) have a long history of arguing over random nonsense. Here is a link to their most recent lengthy blowout: here.

Some past arguments between the two (covering almost three years now): August 2011, August 2011, August 2011, November 2011, March 2012, April 2012, July 2012, August 2012, October 2012, November 2012, November 2012, March 2013, April 2013, May 2013, May 2013, August 2013.

Moving into 2014, a lot of their bickering has been over Vjmlhds' desire to give Levdr1lostpassword a new award every so often by placing it on their user page. See here, and their continued battles since then: January 2014, April 2014, April 2014.

Note that these discussions are only the ones from Levdr1lostpassword's talk page, I didn't even get to the ones from Vjmlhds' talk page, nor do I think I need to (a look through these conversations and you'll quickly see the problem).

I've attempted to get them to cut this all out before: here. Levdr1lostpassword reply: here. So my proposal is an indefinite interaction ban between the two because I see no other way to end this nonsense. I'm not fully sure how interaction bans work, so if this proposal goes through, the terms, conditions, and consequences are something that would also need to be discussed. Gloss • talk 19:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Gloss is correct in that Vjmlhds and I have occassionally gotten into heated disputes, but these are generally limited to our respective talk pages and do not involve other editors. I don't think we are interfering with other editors, and for my part, I always try to remain civil and AGF. More often that not, these disputes go away without incident. Levdr1lp / talk 19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I think Gloss' characterization here is exaggerated. Many of the above interactions are not disputes at all. For example, this exchange (May 2013) involved a third editor, Ashbeckjonathan, who lashed out at Vjmlhds (see diffs here and here); at the time, I was uninvolved. Despite the section heading ("WTF?!"), Vjmlhds was coming to me for help, and I offered advice while defending his position. A number of the heated interactions also result from Vjmlhds' tendency (in the past) to routinely add unsourced content to articles, so much so that an administrator suggested that I open a discussion at ANI (see archive listing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Long term problems with WP:VERIFY). Most of all, I feel it would be very unfair to say I am at fault for our earliest interactions going back to 2011, during which time Vjmlhds would use personal attacks like "a real pest", "buddy boy", "pain in the @ss", "wiki hall monitor", etc. I have never addressed Vjmlhds in such a manner (and to his credit, he has long since abandoned these type of comments w/ me). Levdr1lp / talk 20:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether it has or has not interfered with other editors is irrelevant, as these arguments are not healthy discussions and have been going on far too long with no indication of stopping. Gloss • talk 19:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: To reiterate, these discussions generally go away w/o any problems. If anything, I think allowing Vjmlhds and I to hash out our differences on our respective talk pages has been helpful. More often, the two of use are able to effectively cooperate, and I think Gloss – who rarely edits the same shared content as Vjmlhds and I – may be reading too much into his limited one-on-one interactions with the two of us. Levdr1lp / talk 20:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: Has it gotten ugly in the past, yes. Has it gotten that level in the last couple of years...no. I won't speak for Levdr, but I think it's safe to say we're both just looking to make Wiki better (especially in our similar fields of interests), we just have our different ways of going about it. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO I'm not sure why we'd institute an interaction between two people, when neither wish it, and it's confined their user talk pages. It'd certainly take more than some abrasive conversations for me to get on board. If their personal interactions bother you, maybe you should avoid reading them. (I mean that last as an honest sugestion, not a sarcastic comment).--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing about it personally bothers me whatsoever. There is no way this kind of interaction among two editors can be considered healthy behavior. Gloss • talk 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment also leads me to believe you didn't read any of the linked discussions. Perhaps skimmed through one or two. For if you did, you'd see the problem. Gloss • talk 22:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, the administrator I referred to above, is familiar w/ our history of interactions. Most recently, Qwyrxian directed us to discuss a content dispute on the WOIO talk page, which we subsequently settled. Qwyrxian is currently on "an extended break", so I'm not sure this helps at all, but I felt compelled to point it out. Levdr1lp / talk 21:06, 7 April 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.

Proposed Interaction Ban Between Ryulong and Nug

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:Ryulong and User:Nug are at it again at Talk:Soviet Union. These are two editors who cannot leave each other alone. They have edit-warred in the past, and are now name-calling. An interaction ban is requested.

The diffs are:

Ryulong restores 15-state infobox on 22 Feb https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=596596315&oldid=596547221

Nug restores 1-11-3 state infobox on 21 Feb https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=596547221&oldid=596004922

Ryulong restores 15-state infobox on 11 Feb https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=595039113&oldid=594563073

Ryulong insults Nug https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602437442&oldid=602436264

Nug insults Ryulong using a barnyard term https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602616533&oldid=602465678

Nug tightens the insult https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602616756&oldid=602616533

Nug piles it on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602618559&oldid=602616756

Ryulong insults Nug https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602621160&oldid=602618691

Nug returns the insults https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602637297&oldid=602621160

For a change, Ryulong is just barely civil https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602683008&oldid=602637297

Nug won't drop it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602701273&oldid=602690484

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I enjoyed the commentary. — lfddersmitten 00:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Can we discuss this, as well as dumping on and defending an editor who quarrels a lot, is often uncivil, and is usually right? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  Why are you keeping this thread alive? I've got nothing else to say to Nug regarding Soviet Union unless he suggests his preferred form after the consensus is currently for the opposite. This is all pointless and should have died when all these subthreads got locked up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's time for Ryulong to go

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's clear that this flew like a lead balloon. I will propose an alternative below. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Claim of disruptive behavior in Sept. 2013
• Civility issue in Oct. 2013
• Withdrawn 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013
• Another 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013
• 3RR thread from Nov. 2013
• Misc. complaint from Jan. 2014
• Edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014
• A second, unrelated edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014
• Page ownership and hostility in Mar. 2014
• Thread on failing to use AGF and calling accounts SOCKs from Mar. 2014

I've really had enough of this. Just looking at the last six, seven months, it's clear that there is a pattern of edit warring, page ownership, and incivility on the part of Ryulong. These are just what I could find in the time frame from the first two pages of the AN archives. There are dozens of other threads on Ryulong stretching back all the way to 2009, and possibly earlier. Every time that Ryulong makes peace with one user (after many months of fighting with User:ChrisGualtieri, they appear to have made peace earlier this year), Ryulong picks up fighting with other users. It's clear that the issue is Ryulong, and that the most sensible course of action is to cut ties with the user. It's sad when we have to ask productive content creators to leave, but Ryulong has had plenty of chances to change his behavior and has failed to do so.

In short, I am proposing an indefinite block of Ryulong, with an indefinite 1RR restriction on him as a condition for any future unblock. I don't see any other answers that could possibly work. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef ban, disruptive to the community for years, I'm surprised it took this long for a ban to be proposed. Secret ^account 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, while not always a shining example of civility Ryulong is still a net positive to the site. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Hell in a Bucket (god I love that user name), plus...I still feel many are over reacting.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Ryulong feels like a failure now. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Booo, booo on the h8ers. Ryulong gets in trouble cuz of his big mouth sometimes, but he doesn't need to be blocked, just spanked. Mindy Dirt (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• I support an indefinite 1RR restriction and a good long block (1 month at least) for Ryulong. The amount of disruption he causes is just way too much over a long time. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Dicklyon that some sanctions might be warranted, but imposing what's functionally a siteban is a bad idea unless lesser sanctions (interaction bans, topic bans, something else) have been attempted without success. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. A site ban is inappropriate to say the least. As HiaB says R is a net positive for the project. MarnetteD | Talk 03:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good point. We need to consider the impact of banning a consistent content creator — someone who's actively developing content needs to be given a lot more leeway than someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. Bans can be appropriate for people who are adding good content, but we need to be more hesitant and try a lot more other approaches. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some kind of sanction seems to be needed, perhaps what Dickylon suggested, perhaps something lesser than that, but an indef block does not seem to be called for. How about 1RR and what used to be called a "civility restriction", i.e. a hair-trigger on anything that's even remotely impolite or uncivil. BMK (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - While Ryulong does have a bit of a block log, I don't think jumping straight to an indef block is appropriate unless more reasonable and moderate restrictions have been considered first, especially given Mark Miller's analysis of the diffs below. - Aoidh (talk) 03:44, 5 April 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 in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See withdraw message at the bottom of this box. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

---

@Secret, Hell in a Bucket, Mark Miller, Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever, Mindy Dirt, Dicklyon, and MarnetteD:@Nyttend, Beyond My Ken, Aoidh, and Georgewilliamherbert: - Based on the feedback from the above section, I have proposed an alternative below. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Place Ryulong under a 1RR restriction

Based on the conversation above, it looks unlikely that there will be a consensus for blocking Ryulong. There are several people in support of a 1RR restriction, however. Ryulong has nine blocks for 3RR violations, 10 if you count the 4 February 2014 block. Three (four if you count the 4 February 2014) have come in the last six months. It has been a recurring problem since 2006, and tends to come in waves of several violations and blocks over a few months, followed by no blocks for a year or so. In addition to the 3RR complaints that have resulted in blocks, there have been numerous additional complaints of edit warring - some more valid than others - stretching over several years. As such, I propose the following:

Ryulong is placed under an indefinite 1RR restriction. He may appeal it (with the expectation that it will be lifted, barring other serious concerns) after one year without a block for edit warring or disruptive/battleground editing (blocks that are overturned don't count against him in one year period). If Ryulong receives three additional blocks for edit warring or disruptive/battleground editing before this restriction is vacated, it automatically becomes a 0RR restriction (again, overturned blocks don't count against him).

While I personally believe that this is perhaps too lenient for the amount of disruption Ryulong has caused, I feel that it is more in line with what the community would support; progressively escalating sanctions aimed at preventing recurring edit war issues.

• Support as proposer. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I was too late to add my strong oppose to the proposed ban. Site bans are for the most egregious vandals and and sockpuppeteers, and those whose potential positives are far outweighed by demonstrated negatives. Ryulong is none of those things.

He has seriously annoyed an awful lot of people, but there appears a lack of evidence of malice in his behaviour: he appears not to be able to help himself. As Sven points out, this has been a problem for years. Ryulong is a valued content contributor, but appears to be unable to change his behavior to consistently match community norms. If he cannot change himself, then the solution is to make him change.

As evidenced above, the problem here is edit warring. The solution is to reduce his ability to edit war. (Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me, but I thinks this is a secondary issue. It will be difficult to be rude when you are under a 1RR restriction at the same time. There is also a pragmatic reason to concentrate only on edit warring: civility is hard to define, let alone agree what is a breach of it; edit warring is obvious.) If he can contribute under this restriction, it's a win win-situation for all involved. If he cannot contribute under the restriction, then the blocks will get longer and longer, and he will effectively ban himself. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So is this like a last chance thing then? When's the last time that worked for anyone, I wonder? It seems pretty obvious to me he can't be disciplined on this, so if we'd like for him to stay, we ought to try a different approach and/or put up with it (i.e. give him the customary 24h block when he edit wars). — lfdder 04:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. The point of a 3RR block is to force the parties involved in a revert war to de-escalate. The point of a 1RR restriction is to prevent the escalation in the first place, or at least attempt that. De-escalation is what happens every time someone takes a dispute to the talk page, solicits a third opinion, or simply walks away, and if someone is unwilling or unable to do those things, 1RR is a way of pushing them towards the goal of not escalating into a revert war. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• So if 9 blocks didn't do a thing, why will this change anything? You know, other than getting him blocked more easily next time? What's your aim here? — lfdder 04:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Two months later and you want a community sanction for edit warring. Some may say that last edit warring issue is stale after that long and the editor was already sanctioned for it. What is the specific reason here? Because the first proposal failed? This has no better basis for this sanction than the above proposal. This begins to sound more and more like a punitive action.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • lfdder and Mark Miller: 1RR breaks the feedback loop. The longer someone remains in a contentious debate (reverts are an abstract form of debate), the more likely that person is to start taking the disagreement personally, becoming emotionally invested in the outcome. When that happens, incivility and revert wars can be quick to follow. 1RR changes how a person is involved in a debate, from being able to go back and forth to only being able to say your piece once before moving on. Obviously talk page discussions are still an option with 1RR, but when someone is no longer able to contest the article itself, the urgency of making the change dissipates somewhat. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that, but I doubt that it'll work out in the form of a restriction. — lfdder 05:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't. There has been no attempt to address my concern that there is currently no issue to sanction over and this seems rather random and punitive at this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support That's a need for Ryulong because of his ongoing violation of Wikipedia rules. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't like the fact that many people don't want an indefinite block on Ryulong, but that block is neccessary. More people would like this 1RR restriction than the block. If either don't gain big support, then it's failure. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose seems like this would just pad out his block log and make the work he does in already difficult areas even harder, since the opposition would automatically have the upper hand. We should be applauding editors willing to take on such unpleasant tasks, not crippling them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment did not please me, because it sounds like support for a failing user because he causes damage. "We should be applauding editors willing to take on such unpleasant tasks" means supporting a user whose edits are disruptive and controversial. Anyone opposing either the indef ban and/or the 1RR restriction is making Ryulong worse. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The AN/I discussion was started because of recent perceived incivility issues (which I won't comment on one way or the other), while also mentioning the edit-warring. However, the aforementioned edit-warring shown in the diffs last took place in February, and it's April. Civility was the recent concern, and a 1RR wouldn't address that. The edit-warring can be addressed if it continues to be a problem. I don't see a pressing need for that right now, especially if Ryulong is aware that continued edit-warring in that manner would result in, at minimum, a 1RR restriction (and Ryulong I have no doubt that's what would happen if it continued). But for now, a 1RR restriction seems like an odd response for civility concerns, since that seems to be the recent activity causing concern (though I do thank Sven for the notification, not everyone would be that courteous). - Aoidh (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As Aoidh points out, the edit-warring is a past issue. Sanctions, like blocks, should whenever possible be preventiative, not punitive, and imposting a 1RR sanction in April for edit-warring in February is punitive. There may or may not be problems with this editor, but if there are, this is not the solution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• I regret my support of the 1RR restriction, so I ultimately oppose it. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for 1RR proposal

Can someone please explain WHY we are proposing this right now? What is the reasoning to hand out a 1RR restriction to this editor at the moment. What is the spark or the driving force....in other words, what was the "incident"?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community did not support an indefinite block on Ryulong. The decision to not block him was bad since it creates more destruction from Ryulong, and I was annoyed in my mind by the support for Ryulong (and not that restriction) because Sven wanted an indef block. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...OK, but what is the specific incident bringing this to the community now?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The incident was Ryulong continuing to make edit wars and disruptive edits on articles like Attack on Titan days after an innocent user was the subject of a sockpuppet investigation because he edited Soviet Union hours before the time another user edited it. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Because anybody whose name shows up at ANI more than x number of times is apparently a bad guy and needs some kind of sanctions. It doesn't matter if they're usually right and/or that the complainer is often found to have done worse things than what they're complaining about. And it certainly doesn't matter if the person being complained about is a valuable content contributor working in areas many hardened Wikipedians wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Anybody who gets mentioned that much must surely be guilty of something or other, right? Right? Right? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Any opposition to the indef block and 1RR restriction is actually wrong because they did not pay enough attention to every single Wikipedia rule violation Ryulong ever made during September 2013 — present. Everyone must stop supporting him because he is getting worse. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction proposal recieved 3 supports and 2 opposes. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I realized he actually made (slightly) more good edits than bad edits, considering Special:Contributions/Ryulong for evidence. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Furthermore, this has been open for one hour - assuming it doesn't get speedy closed, these discussions last at least a day. Also, your replying to every oppose making bad faith comments about the opposers does not help your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Bushranger, I actually realized that compared to the opposition, I was more harmful than them. I regret supporting the indef block because Ryulong is actually still good. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This has an air of accusations of "Witch"!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The specific impetus for all of this was seeing the "Proposed Interaction Ban Between Ryulong and Nug" thread above, which caused me to remember all of the other proposed interaction bans and complaints of battleground behavior (incl. edit warring) that I've seen on AN/ pages about Ryulong lately. I made the mistake of listing all of them, instead of listing only the ones that gained traction, and clearly that has undercut my argument.

Andrew Lenahan points out Ryulong's work in areas that most users "wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole", but Ryulong has historically been one of the major causes for areas becoming untenable to work in. Anime and manga has been a mess for years, and Ryulong was a major part of that. I stepped in to try to resolve what had been a long-running dispute between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri, which resulted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC. Before I stepped in and suggested the RfC, the community was rapidly approaching a long-term block of both parties. I ultimately backed out after Ryulong started edit warring with someone else and after an IRC conversation with ChrisGualtieri that did not go well. Once I pulled out, the two got spooked an worked out their differences in private, but "worked out their differences" just ended up being ChrisGualtieri leaving the area of anime and manga. That's not a solution, that's one user poisoning the atmosphere of a topic area so badly that other users leave it.

Since that RfC, Ryulong has been blocked three times for edit warring. The thread above, while primarily a civility issue, is also about revert warring. Ultimately, while many people here draw distinctions between edit warring and civility issues, they both come down to battleground behavior. Ryulong's editing, both the way that he treats editors he disagrees with and the way he exerts ownership over articles he is interested in, is a source of recurring problems. My proposing a block came from the belief that the rest of the community was as fed up with his as I was, something that appeared to hold true at the end of last year, in the midst of the Ryulong/ChrisGualtieri flare up, but doesn't seem to be the case now. My proposing the 1RR is a next best attempt at trying to force Ryulong to stop engaging in battleground behavior. It is clear that short blocks do not deter him, and it is also clear that administrators are not willing to give blocks in increasing lengths, something that normally happens for repeat offenses. Aside from blocks and 1RR, there aren't any options I can see for preventing incidents from flaring up month after month after month.

Ultimately, it's clear that I jumped too far on too weak a triggering incident, but I remain convinced that some sort of action is needed regarding Ryulong, for the reasons I outlined above. I fear that we will eventually be discussing all of this again, either here or at ArbCom, a few months down the line. While I understand the community's reluctance to place sanctions on Ryulong in this case, I find it troubling that despite nine blocks and well over a dozen serious reports at AN/I and AN/3RR, some people aren't even willing to acknowledge that this is a symptom of a larger, recurring behavioral issue.

My proposal is withdrawn. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:39, 5 April 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.

Discussion for indefinite block

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

---

• Mark Miller: There has been a thread on Ryulong at either AN/I or AN/3RR, on average, once a month every month for at least a year. Does this one incident justify an indefinate block? No. The monthly AN threads and the five blocks in the past six months for disruptive editing and edit warring do demonstrate, however, that Ryulong is repeatedly breaking our editing policies, and is ill inclined to change. I could be talked down to a block for six months, even a block for three months, but Ryulong already has a dozen blocks for 3RR and disruptive editing, and continues to do so. Avoiding 3RR really isn't that hard. If a user refuses to stop engaging in battleground behavior, he has to be removed from the battleground. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't need to be talked down...you need to gain a consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    • By talked down, I mean talked into supporting a lesser sanction. It there was a developing consensus for a three or six month block, I would support it, even though I believe that as soon as the block expires, we'll be back at AN/I and AN/3RR again. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I simply meant that regardless of what you desire you still need the consensus of the general community unless there is an admin willing to block regardless of the outcome of this community discussion. That's all.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Lets take the diffs one by one shall we?

• Claim of disruptive behavior in Sept. 2013

• This thread simply states there was a claim. A claim is not sufficient reason to ask for a block especially when it ended with the editor staing: "I get it. I will cease relying on WP:ROLLBACK and stick with WP:UNDO and WP:TWINKLE and curb my language to be more approachable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Civility issue in Oct. 2013

• Ok, now this was a simple mistake that was immediately rectified without almost any recognition to it. This is what the editor said there: "I realized my errors regarding the accusations of WP:GAME and retracted them and apologized." But there is more, if we are to rehash all of this, than let us rehash ALL of it and remember that others held some blame in this interaction such as per Hateur's comment: "A Pox on both (or all) your houses ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, and another editor who has been previously sanctioned (with respect to the other 2) have constantly been bickering back and forth across multiple venues (DRN,AN*,VP*). At this time I consider the net good you may have as been completely overshadowed by the eruptions of drama-bickering that require well trained (and thick skinned) volunteers to take their time way from productive ventures to extricate the combatants. I seem to recall that the riot act has been read in relation to these editors before, so I assumed that they would have behaved themselves. I guess I was wrong. I am deliberately being obtuse regarding the third editor because I don't want to inject any further drama into the issue by giving notice to them and opening the door for them to comment here. If others disagree, please feel free to notify the user in question Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)" And then there is the last comment by the OP which seems to indicate there was nothing there to begin with: "I request the closure of this thread. It has gone off topic, no admin action is necessary. Also, this needs to be closed for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2 to begin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawn 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013

• This entire thread was closed as : "ChrisGualtieri (t c) has requested to withdraw the report, and there was no particular consensus to take action among the admins who commented. —Darkwind (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013

• The report ended with "No action".--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• 3RR thread from Nov. 2013

• This one gained a sanction. Ryulong blocked for 24 hours.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Misc. complaint from Jan. 2014

• Closed as: "Any editors that feel the dispute is stuck should proceed with the steps at WP:DR. Claims about revert warring are handled at WP:AN3. Sancho 16:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014

• Closed per: "This has been overcome by events as Ryulong has been blocked 72h for an entirely different matter. The SPI on the other side of the issue is here, so it seems there's nothing left for ANI at the moment here. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• A second, unrelated edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014

• Wow....just...wow. This one is rather ridiculous. It gained no consensus and clearly shows that others behavior was not to snuff either.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page ownership and hostility in Mar. 2014

• This to me...was just a complaint fest and really achieved nothing but making editors look bad all around.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thread on failing to use AGF and calling accounts SOCKs from Mar. 2014

• I don't see failing to AGF as a violation that is block worthy but this one is where Dennis brown at least informed the editor that accusations of Sock Puppetry without an SPI report is a personal attack. I see this often and when I mention this people really laugh...but it is true and I see that Ryūlóng simply did not understand that as many do not.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In short, of the ten diffs Sven linked only one garnered a sanction and one other was closed do to sanctions already imposed. As we can see there have been some blocks, but I also see a lot of over reaction and exaggeration here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As of this edit, there are 3 supports and 3 opposes to the proposal by Sven. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And at Wikipedia we call that "no consensus". But the most important part of any discussion is whether or not the original complaint is legitimate enough to be going this route. Frankly...it doesn't appear so to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said that all of the threads were valid. Some of them were, and some of them were not. What I said was that Ryulong constantly gets brought to AN/I and AN/3RR. The frequency of the complaints against him is higher than almost any other user I can think of, and that's because he has a pattern of aggressive page ownership and overt hostility. If I wanted to, I could have gone back several years and pulled a dozen really nasty incidents. I don't believe, however, that what someone did in 2009 should be held against them today, at least in most cases. Instead I pulled the most recent discussions I could find, to illustrate that the user is rather consistantly at the center of disputes, and seems incapable of avoiding them for any real length of time. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has been controversial for some time, but simply counting ANI appearances is deceiving, as has been noted. R is super active, and in some areas that attract less experienced users. R is generally looking to do the right thing for the encyclopedia, not just have his way. The times he goes overboard he gets sanctioned and the times he's warned it usually makes appropriate changes in his behavior, other than perhaps not generally having mellowed out overall that much. I think the appropriate questions are, do questions about Ryulong's conduct come up a lot (yes), does Ryulong generally take input from uninvolved admins and editors (mostly), does Ryulong contribute positively to the encyclopedia (mostly, and voluminously). Lacking any particular huge feuds or horrible incidents, a ban seems way out of proportion. Even if the behavior has crossed some new threshold, and needs to be walked back, proposing a ban without having worked with the editor directly or with a RfC is counterproductive.

I encourage direct feedback... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 5 April 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 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.

Trolling or compromised account or both

Orphiwn left this insult at User talk:AndreasJS. Andreas justifiably reverted it. Subsequently Orphiwn leaves a message to Andreas in Greek telling him that the notification [system], which informed Orphiwn of Andreas's revert, is wrong and that Orphwin never did the original insulting edit and that he doesn't even know Andreas. Orphiwn goes on to say that this is a security issue and he wants to be informed as to how can someone leave an edit with Orphiwn's account name without Orphiwn knowing about it. This can be some type of trolling or compromised account. Whatever the case may be, I think it needs a resolution. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, this does look like an account that was temporarily compromised somehow. Given that Orphiwn appears to be otherwise a perfectly serious and constructive contributor, I'd exclude the "trolling" scenario. More like "accidentally left his account logged in in a library once" or "little brother did it". Normally we'd technically block the account for being compromised, but since it seems to have been a one-off thing, and the original account owner is currently clearly back in control of it and there has been no sign of ongoing illegitimate activities, I think in the interest of not scaring off an otherwise very positive contributor we should avoid blocks. It ought to be sufficient to remind him to change his password. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your analysis is ok, except that this statement gave me some cause for concern: "Φυσικά αυτό αποτελεί παραβίαση ασφαλείας αφού κάποιος μπόρεσε να γράψει κάτι τέτοιο και να αφήσει να φανεί ότι το έχω κάνει εγώ. Αν βγει κάποιο συμπέρασμα παρακαλώ ενημερώστε με, με κάποιο τρόπο." which translates to: Naturally, this is a security breach since someone was able to write something like that and to make it appear as if I did it. If a conclusion is reached please notify me, somehow". According to this statement, this user did not consider the rather natural possibility that their own computer, or some computer terminal, might have been used in their absence, and while they were logged in, but instead he is asking to be notified if a conclusion is reached about the nature of the security breach. It may be that the editor is not particularly technically savvy, but that is also not a good sign, especially when security breaches are concerned. As far as the case that the original account owner is back in control, from their global contributions it appears that they have not edited anywhere past the 28 March 2013 date when the compromised edit was made. The only edits past that date appear to have been made on en.wiki and concern the message to Andreas JS. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to help the understanding on the subject I decided to add this annotation. I wanted to inform the previous annotator (Dr.K.) that there is not any possibility that someone else logged in from a computer I had previously logged in Wikipedia. I know enough about computers and specially security subjects as a programmer and networks' administrator for many years. I live completely alone, I am 59 years old and have no little brothers or other persons that could use my computers. I also never use computers in public places like an internet cafe or other business places outside my home as the last years I spend all my days writing a book. Certainly this story is something that makes me worrying and makes me feel uneasy and I have never seen anything alike (in my unfortunately until now small experience here) posted in any page on Wikipedia sites. I hope and wish it is not something serious, but I also could not keep it without informing AndreasJS for the event. Specially since I am also a Greek native and would never of course make such a comment to an other Greek. Primarily I am interested that the right persons in Wikipedia be informed for the information of their records that maybe fit with other cases. I trust the persons involved in the Wikipedia project and I know there are people who finally solve all the problems.
☺ Orphiwn (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC) ☺

Care to explain why you removed/edited other comments [211] ? .... Me thinks you're trolling! -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Me too. It's true that a simple removal of somebody else's comment is something the "ANI bug" can do, but if Orphiwn's invasive "copyedit" of EllenCT's comment (same edit) was accidental, I'd like to see an explanation for how such a thing could happen. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Looks to me that it undid several unrelated edits; the EllenCT one was this one. I think it was probably inadvertent. alanyst 00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that was the ANI bug. He had to take the diff of these revisions and then revert to the older one by EllenCT. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise Ellen had used a separate edit to add those flourishes, that Orphiwn removed. Then it could be the bug, indeed (even though you seem to draw the opposite conclusion, Dr.K). Sorry, for my part I withdraw the trolling suggestion. Bishonen | talk 00:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

I'm pretty certain it's the bloody bug and not us being trolled so apologies Orphiwn for that accusation which I've now struck :). -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI goes screwy when it gets too long -- the old bot has stopped and I've tried to get a new one to take over (see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#It_looks_like...). In the meantime I've semi-manually archived a few sections which might help. Oh, we're supposed to WP:AGF around here, by the way... NE Ent 02:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

First we had the account compromised through an as yet unknown process, then the ANI bug hit unraveling multiple edits. Perhaps we can close this thread now and open it again on Halloween. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Debian (IP 84.127.80.114)

84.127.80.114 is refusing to acknowledge the consensus and is pushing on with its agenda ([212]). It has also demanded that the editors 'cooperate', translated 'accept my edits'. The consensus has been identified as against the edits Talk:Debian, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_88#Debian, Declined arbitration request by IP, and that the edits are against Wikipedia's policies.

This IP has been blocked before as a warning and is still ignoring this warning, could the IP be blocked for a (much?) longer period of time (before it wastes any more editors time, see links).

Thanks mthinkcpp (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Note this IP has been blocked twice. Last week for disruption on Talk:Debian, which was made more restrictive during it, & an earlier block.[213] To date, this IP has almost no useful contributions,[214] & has caused too much disruption. This IP also has yet to demonstrate any comprehension of WP's policies & guidelines, though this IP is obviously skilled at learning & (mis-)using WP's administrative procedures. Thanks, Lentower (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

In the previous incident, I complained about not being able to reply. I am aware of this new incident. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This IP was unable to reply during the later part of this IP's second block, because an admin decided this IP replies in the earlier part was too disruptive. The admin made the block more restrictive. Lentower (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed 84.127.80.114's edits since the block expired, and I don't see anything that is even slightly disruptive. Nominating an article for GA[215] and asking other editors who he has had conflicts with in the past to cooperate?[216] Nothing even slightly wrong with that. Expressing his opinion that the block was unfair on his own talk page?[217] Perfectly fine. If anyone doesn't like it they should stop reading his talk page. One short critical comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment?[218] Allowable. Making constructive edits in other areas?[219][220] That's exactly what he was advised to do and in my opinion shows good faith.

In my opinion, 84.127.80.114 is being unfairly punished for things that happened before the block. That's not how we do things around here. He should be allowed to make a new start without prejudice. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on what he wrote, he intends to place the material on the page, using the GA nomination as a mechanism for doing so:

"I could not prepare the article with the help of the regular editors. Thus, I will have to do all the work by myself."

"From this point on, either Debian becomes a good article or I get blocked finally."

Unless you see another interpretation (please say), I cannot find an alternative reason for writing the first comment, or the last. Doing all the work "myself" implies ignoring consensus (based on history) and doing edits that have been rejected. This is backed up by his words "could not prepare...with...regular editors", so it is the rejected edits he's targeting.

The idea of doing a GA nomination is that hopefully (from the IP's view) the reviewer will say something similar to the last reviewer

"This GA review is not looking good here, if you fail to include some type of controversy and/or criticism of Debian. miranda "

In 2008 (Wayback machine) it didn't have a criticism section, which I presume the IP is unaware. Why bring this up? The IP quoted Miranda as an excuse for the content to go on the page (see Debian talk page).

It implies that he hasn't 'dropped the stick', instead he is trying a new mode of attack. As he has been advised by administrators to 'drop the stick' he is violating the warnings he has been given. Yes I agree it isn't giving the IP a fresh start, however it works both ways, he has to try to make a fresh start, and also give any other editors (and administrators) a fresh start too (i.e assume that the IP never had dealings with them before), as the primary condition for a fresh start I would require that he actually drops the stick.

mthinkcpp (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems fair to wait until this IP actually makes such edits in article space, gets disruptive again, or otherwise goes against WP's policies and guidelines. This IP might even become a constructive editor. I agree that this IP's words since this IP's second block are not encouraging. Lentower (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. mthinkcpp (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Massive tagging spree

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.

---

Buspirtraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be tagging every stub on sight with {{Expand}}. If such massive tagging sprees were helpful, I guess we would have run a bot. Or am I mistaken here? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought you meant the generic expand tag, which is pointless with a stub tag too. But these look like good expansion tags, as they link to the relevant interwiki article. The first one I looked at was Rudolf Burnitz, which has the "expand German" tag on the page. Looking at the German article, it does indeed have much more content than the English version and might encourage someone to use the German one for expansion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Infact, on closer inspection, all Buspirtraz seems to be doing as adding in the article title parameter into an existing expand tag on the article. I don't see anything wrong with that. Have you raised this with them on their talkpage? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I sampled about 20 of his edits, and see no problems. Taking a generic "expand" tag and fix it so it is pointing the reader to the exact article that they can use to expand from. That would encourage bilingual persons to actually do the work since they don't have to hunt for the article to expand from. I would say those edits are improvements and a good thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't it obvious to any bilingual person that the article about a Russian city in the Russian Wikipedia is way longer than its counterpart in the English Wikipedia? It does not take an Einstein to figure that out. If such tagging is indeed helpful, you'd better run a bot and tag all the russia-geo-stubs. Template:Expand says, by the way, that its use has been deprecated. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • A bot would be better, I'm just saying the purpose of the edits seems to be to improve the encyclopedia, not to do damage. Adding the link adds convenience, but if there a specific reason to not do so, you could just discuss it with him on his talk page. And the template that is to replace it, Template:Incomplete talks about a section, not whole article, so I would say that it isn't a good substitute. Regardless, I don't see any bad faith or behavioral concerns so I don't see an issue here that requires an admin jump in and take action at ANI, and since it is a content issue, admin generally don't get involved unless we can see he is defying consensus and has been shown what consensus is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, a bot would not be better. This tagging is only appropriate when the other language's article is better: a short well-referenced article should not be expanded by translating a completely uncited article from another language. Most expansions of this sort would require a longer article in the source language, but if the other language has a short well-referenced article and ours is longer but uncited or otherwise junk, we'd do better to reduce our article by translating. Unless you can show that Buspirtraz is tagging articles that are obviously better than the corresponding foreign-language articles, there's nothing to worry about here. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, there you go. Thanks for adding the final bit of clarity to the issue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:18, 7 April 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:Ghost0099

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've noticed this user's involvements on a couple of Christian-themed pages. After two warnings from myself and another user over his edits to God's Not Dead (film), he has continued to make the same edit, consisting of an inflation of the weekend box office take of the film. Discussion has been attempted on both the user's talk page and on the article's talk page. I wouldn't have come here with it without attempting further discussion, except when I looked at his or her contributions I've seen that all of his or her edits appear to be vandalism. Here are some diffs to highlight the problem:

• The Passion of the Christ
• The Passion of the Christ
• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)
• The Exodus
• Maccabees

And diffs of the multiple edits that drew my attention are here (note the time stamps, as this is the user making the exact same edit repeatedly, without discussion):

• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)

Note that this is the majority of the user's edits, and that those not presented here consist of more changes to articles' era-dating style, and two edits which could be argued not to be vandalism per se, here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjolnirPants (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandal for 24 hours, but not a vandalism-only-account, since some of the edits (e.g. the ones you gave at the bottom) definitely aren't blatant vandalism. Any recidivism will warrant longer blocks. You could have taken this to WP:AIV and maybe gotten a quicker response, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of WP:AIV, but thank you for informing me. I can't possibly complain about the response time either way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It seems like most reports here of this sort come from people who don't know about AIV, so I figured you probably weren't aware of it. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 7 April 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:Steeletrap reverts to Austrian Economics Sanctions article – Request for editing restrictions

Background: This is regarding an edit made by User:Steeletrap in which a (contentious) edit was made while a discussion has been ongoing.

• There is an ArbCom case pending in which User:Steeletrap (and I) are parties. See: Pending Arbcom.
• The article in question (Walter Block) is subject to General Sanctions. Steeletrap has been notified of those sanctions. The article talk page has a General Sanctions notification template.
• The editors involved with this particular piece had, to greater or lesser extent, agreed to a voluntary IBAN/TBAN. USER:SPECIFICO did not agree to the IBAN/TBAN. The ban between Steeletrap & myself seems to be void. User:Carolmooredc agreed to the IBAN/TBAN and seems to remains bound by the bans.
• Steeletrap has complained to an Admin about my edits. See: User_talk:Adjwilley#User:Srich32977_editing_AE_pages & Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Proposed_decision#Dispute_continues. (No action was taken.)

Edits:

1. At [221] Steeletrap adds material about Walter Block.
2. At [222] User:Carolmooredc reverts the edit.
3. At [223] I open a BRD on the particular edit, noting the sanctions and inviting discussion.
4. At [224] User:SPECIFICO restores the material. (No participation in the BRD was undertaken by Specifico.)
5. At [225] I revert the edit and point out the specific talk page location for the BRD.
6. Steeletrap engages in the discussion, see: Talk:Walter_Block#Writeup_in_NYT_opinion_piece. Specifico also contributes.
7. At [226] Steeletrap restores the material.

I submit: The discussion has been on-going, but not all issues (particularly WP:BLPFIGHT) have not been resolved. One of the interested editors (Carolmooredc) has not participated in the discussion (perhaps as per her voluntary IBAN/TBAN). There has been no RFC submitted on the edits. There has been no request for closure submitted. But, most importantly, there is no consensus for this BLP related edit. Accordingly, I submit that Steeletrap's restoration of the material violates the General Sanctions which pertain to this article and sanctions editing restrictions should be applied. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Without regard to the merits or non merits of these edits I will note a very recent ANI discussion which pointed out WP:NOCONSENSUS says " However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." which would make the default action remove, until there is a positive consensus for inclusion. This is echoed in Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." although that second policy bit appears to be written assuming the entire article was deleted, and not just a particular bit of content. Beyond that, with the sanctions on the page, it seems that this is an area where some level of enforcement may be needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If three editors agree to an IBAN and violate it then the ANI should be about the resumption of disruptive editing, not a transplanted inappropriate content dispute at ANI. Take it to RSN or BLPN if you have genuine policy based concerns. Last I looked, Srich was changing his reasoning every time he posted, and the primary behavioral issue is not Steeletrap's content edit, which does not violate policy, but rather the Carolmoore's and Srich's violations of their IBAN given the sequence of events, I'm not sure but I think it is possible that Steeletrap also violated the IBAN. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, the primary issues (positing that the material is about a living person, thus automatically falling under WP:BLP) are whether the material in the added material is intrinsically "contentious", whether the material is a "contentious claim" asserted in Wikipedia's voice, whether the material is "opinion clearly cited as opinion", and whether the material has a clear consensus for inclusion if it passes the other bars.

The first source (NYT article on Rand Paul) is neither primarily about Block, nor does it go into any factual specifics about his views other than in a clearly "sound bite" format, which Block clearly pointed out. Thus it is not actually a fact-checked reliable source about Block, although it clearly would pass usage at Rand Paul for its statements specifically about Paul. It is clearly an "opinion piece" with regard to its en passant mentions of Block. The NYT article clearly is not a "strong reliable source" about Block, especially where the issue of "out of context" has been clearly raised by Block. Thus that source, independently of any other considerations fails to meet WP:BLP as a source, much less a source for a contentious statement.

The second source provided in the edit at issue is from lewrockwell.com and is written by Block substantially as a retort to the NYT article which is not usable in itself, so I would rule out the response to material which fails WP:RS without debating whether the source otherwise would be usable.

Lastly we have the "insidehighered" source. The article is clearly an opinion piece, and by Wikipedia dicta is only usable for its opinions ascribed to Scott Jaschik as his opinion and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Any facts therein ought to be sourced to a separate non opinion secondary reliable source if we wish to use them.

We thus end up with one actual usable reliable source, albeit one which is substantially an opinion piece and not a dispassionate piece of reportage.

To the extent that the section is trying to specifically deal with NYT editorial opinions, it pretty much fails the primary Wikipedia tests of "Is it of encyclopedic value to readers seeking information on the topic?" and "Is it a contentious claim?" It also fails on the implicit claim which is clearly "contentious" that Block would approve in some way of racism and slavery, as material in opinion pieces frequently is taken "out of context" as apparently Block argues.

I suggest therefore that the material as presented does not have strong reliable sources, although some of the claims in the insidehighered piece would be usable if sourced to clear reliable fact sources, that the material is contentious, that it would require both acceptable reliable secondary sources not based as editorial pieces and also a consensus of editors on the article. Cheers (long answer, I know - but wish to cover this in a logical manner) Collect (talk) Collect (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, are you and Srich opening up a new version of Wikipedia? I ask because you seem to be parroting his imaginary policies. For instance, you claim that the NYT article cannot be used because Block is not the main point of the article. There is no policy suggesting that. You also repeat his statement that the piece, which was written by reporters for the Times news section, is an 'opinion piece.' Seriously, do you boys read newspapers? Read a Paul Krugman, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, or Maureen Dowd piece and tell me if it remotely resembles the report on Rand Paul's ideological influences. Moreover, the claim in question -- that Block thinks slavery was "not so bad" apart from its being involuntary -- is not a claim of opinion but a claim of fact: it's either true or false that Block believes this. The burden of proof is on you to show that the Times and its writers were misrepresenting an opinion piece as a news piece (the assumption on WP is that NYT is RS).

17 of Block's academic colleagues and the President of his university disagree with your view that it is unreliable. They were sufficiently satisfied by the accuracy of the quotation to publicly criticize Block for it. To my knowledge, no reliable sources agree with Block's claims of misrepresentation, despite the substantial coverage this story has generated. If you are concerned that the quote about slavery is too brief, you are welcome to expand it. (Block provides the full context of the quotation in his response article; anyone is free to quote his entire remark.) However, purging reliable sources and notable controversies from an article is contrary to policy.

Finally, is a BLP/RS issue rather than a behavioral issue. The question is whether the New York Times and Inside Higher Education pieces are reliable sources, not whether Miss Steele is an incorrigible trouble maker. It should be moved to the appropriate forum. Steeletrap (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"purging reliable sources and notable controversies from an article is contrary to policy. " Somehow I've missed you making that argument in the Gun control debate... Perhaps you meant to say notable controversies you agree with? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC

I thank User:Gaijin42 for the no-consensus link. It applies to a certain extent, but is pre-mature. That is, the Walter Block discussion is on-going, not all possibly interested parties have participated (such as CarolMooreDC), and only some of the issues have been resolved (e.g., use of "however".) The problem is that Steeletrap seeks to re-introduce the BLP material while the discussion is going on. Also, Steeletrap describes my reversion of the BLP material as "cleansing" and "purging" and "OR" and now Collect is "parroting" my "imaginary" policies. It comes down to this – Steeletrap has a personal distain for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and people associated with it. Steeletrap is importing a BLP fight into Wikipedia. Steeletrap is TE by re-introducing the material before consensus is reached (or not reached). Steeletrap's behavior in this is unacceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a principle, not a policy. I tried to work with you in fairly representing Block's response, and to make the content more neutral. But you insisted on purging everything, from the 17 academic colleagues, to the university president, to the New York Times. Given the highly notable and imminently reliable nature of this material, your conduct is unacceptable. I cannot sit by idly while you 'cleanse' well-sourced content from an article based on no cogent argument. Steeletrap (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a principle that reflects the overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS of Wikipedia's editors - and WP:CONSENSUS is policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is a dynamic process. Editing (not just discussion) is part of building a consensus. Rich should have reverted whatever part of my edit he found objectionable, rather than purging everything and taking me to a noticeboard. I am not edit warring; my last edit to the article before un-doing Rich's reversion today was several weeks ago. Steeletrap (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How on earth Steeletrap can say a re-re-revert to the particular material – while the discussion is going on – is "building a consensus" is beyond me. Steeletrap wants Steeletrap's particular version. – S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point. You can't discard WP:BRD as "just a principle", because it reflects the consensus of Wikipedia's editors on the subject - people can and have been blocked for ignoring the "D" in "BRD". And even with "several weeks" gap between reverts an edit-war is still an edit-war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that performing one revert (ever) constitutes an edit war. Is the meaning of that term whatever admin says it is? Steeletrap (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

These issues continue to simmer and occasionally boil. It might be easier for some passing admin just to topic ban all of the participants name in the ArbCom case under the terms of the existing sanctions, pending an ArbCom decision. ArbCom are dealing with a couple of messy cases at the moment and it is no wonder that it is taking a while: trying to hit a moving target doesn't make things easier for them.- Sitush (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:IDontLIkeit. Apparently the merit of my edit, which no one has addressed but OP, has no bearing on whether i should be banned. Also: It's frankly naive to think that the reason Arbcom has taken months (particularly on a case as clear-cut and accessible (confined to one page) as gun control) solely because it's being so meticulous. Steeletrap (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, it's about time that you learned to AGF a bit. Since the voluntary IBAN etc did not work, a formal topic ban pending the ArbCom decision is eminently reasonable. No-one named in the ArbCom case has denied that there has been disruption etc: the issue has always fundamentally been about who is to blame, and the situation has not been helped by the tendentious wikilawyering and general pedantry of those who have been involved. Perhaps you can all get along on other subjects but you sure as hell are not doing when it comes to Austrian Economics, Ludwig van Mises etc.

There is nothing pretty or useful about a group of narrow-focussed, pedantic and often clearly-biassed contributors battering each other over a prolonged period and continuing to do so even when in the glare of the ArbCom spotlight. While I've got my own opinions about how ArbCom should decide, right now the greater good is clearly that the lot of you stay away from the topic area and from each other. And if you don't like how ArbCom do things then just walk away from Wikipedia entirely until the end of the year. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't break the IBAN. Rich did by reverting my edits, to non-Austrian pages incidentally (and in Carol's case, responding to posst of mine). It's absurd for me to submit to an IBAN when others insist on interacting with me. Steeletrap (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming what I've been saying. I've not apportioned blame in this thread and I'm not getting involved in arguments along the lines of "he started it ...", like kids in a playground. It is equitable to topic ban the lot of you until such time as ArbCom make a decision. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You can ridicule me all you want. But provocation is a legitimate defense in plenty of contexts outside the playground. If anything, that 'he started it' is ridiculed on the playground shows that schoolmarms lack moral nuance. Steeletrap (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop deflecting and grow up. You've been using the tactic for months now. I didn't ridicule you but, even if I had, it wouldn't alter the point. None of you are or have in recent months been a net benefit to Wikipedia when contributing to articles about this subject area. Since you can't control your own urges, the sanctions should be enforced as an interim measure. Don't like that? Go edit someplace else. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic and interaction bans for core Austrian Economics arbitration parties

I propose the following temporary sanctions restrictions be placed on Srich32977, Carolmooredc, Steeletrap, and SPECIFICO to avoid further disruption in the topic area:

• The editors shall not edit articles or talk pages in the topic areas of Austrian economics or libertarianism, broadly construed.
• The editors shall not interact with or mention each other except at the Austrian Economics arbitration pages. (To avoid doubt, "interaction" includes edits to the same article or discussion after any of the other sanctioned similarly restricted editors have recently participated there; and "recently" is subject to discretion of the enforcing admin.)
• These sanctions restrictions shall terminate automatically when the Austrian Economics case is officially closed.

These sanctions restrictions are not intended to apportion blame among the named editors, but to halt the dispute until the Arbitration Committee resolves it.

Struck "sanctions" and replaced with "restrictions" to better convey non-punitive intent. alanyst 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. alanyst 20:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, very good interim measure. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose Excuse me, I sincerely object to this. I have not participated in the recent incivility and I don't expect to be grouped with those who declared and then willfully violated their own topic and interaction bans. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support One would have thunk the ArbCom proceedings would have furnished a clue here, but for now this is a decent interim solution. Collect (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support This expresses much better the suggestion that I was banging on about in the thread. Specifico, it is equitable and, frankly, everyone has been claiming innocence and has been accused by others at various times. To exempt you would provide you with an open goal, especially since you basically chose not to accept the earlier attempt of a voluntary ban - you knew of the thread but kept schtum. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So, @Sitush: Are you stating that because I stated that I rejected the ban and instead declared that I would behave within policy and accept the consequences of any misbehavior, that I should now be sanctioned even though I did not misbehave? Let's ban you as well. Who knows when you might act improperly? And let's not forget Binksternet, Ellenct, Alanyst, and all Adjwilley. Let's ban the anyone in the room! SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per SPECIFICO. We dont ban people for something they might do, without good evidence they will do it. Remove SPECIFICO and I will switch to support. Even though frankly I agree with Steeletrap, but if it keeps carol and srich out of action, its probably a hit the encyclopedia can cope with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, umpteen weeks of nothing and then you throw this into the mix? And you express a preference for keeping one "side" of the debate out of action? I wonder if you are up to date with events? And if you are approaching this neutrally? SPECIFICO was and still is a major part of the back-and-forth and yet they have fairly consistently supported the position of Steeletrap and of the now-gone MilesMoney. I've no real idea whether SPECIFICO's position is more in line with Wikipedia policies than anyone else's but what is clear is that they've remained involved over a prolonged period, they're named in the ArbCom case, they basically ignored the suggestion of a voluntary TBAN/IBAN that was mooted on the talk page of that case ... and we really should not be presenting someone who has been so involved with an open goal. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I proposed something similar as to Specifico & CarolMooreDC back in February when the ArbCom started up. And I joined the voluntary bans when Alanyst & Adjwilley were attempting to stem the continuing dispute. (And I later edited the Mises.org page when an IP posted some unacceptable material.) The only way to keep peace is to apply a ban/bans across the board. – S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Modifications – 1. Allow for article talk page edit requests to correct errors/suggest improvements. 2. Explicitly allow for vandalism reverts. – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not support these suggested modifications. Given that the restrictions are proposed to be temporary, I think the potential for harm to the articles is outweighed by the potential for a re-ignition of the dispute if any kind of editing by the core parties in the topic area is permitted during that time. Edit requests on small errors and improvements can wait; vandalism can be handled by someone who is not restricted (just send them an email if it seems nobody has noticed it). alanyst 04:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst: While I'm supporting the bans, I don't think "sanctions" is the best term to use. The only evidence/diffs presented are those related to the Walter Block article. "Sanctions" sounds so punitive. (Perhaps I should be more careful of what I ask for!) – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As the proposal is not intended to be punitive, I have struck "sanctions" and replaced it with "restrictions". I apologize for the imprecision in the original wording. alanyst 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support I'm cordial with SPECIFICO and I hope he won't take this personally, but he's as much a center of the disputes as the rest. Or at least, he's always shortly at hand whenever the dispute escalates. However, I would rather see this as an Arbcom injunction, formalizing it as related to the Arbcom case and making it more impersonal, than an ANI consensus.--v/r - TP 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

TP, my friend, this is exactly what is wrong with this process. I'm a center of which disputes? None since the Arbitration. The current problem, the one which is the topic of this ANI, is about Srich, Carol, and Steeletrap. Are you sure you meant to say that? One thing that causes a lot of corrosive back-and-forth on these noticeboards is editors' tendency to make factual assertions based on subjective impressions, faulty memory, or casual calculations. You were honorable enough to correct a similar misstatement about me in a prior ANI. I'm very disappointed to see you make the statement above. Others will now come here, see your baseless assertion, and falsely judge me and support sanction against me. That is not the way an open community should function. I am very disappointed. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't help the perception you've developed, whether intentionally or not. I'm sorry, this is my impression and I haven't seen much effort by you to suppress it. Not that you haven't, but I can't recall a time I've seen you not explicitly in agreement with Steeletrap and explicitly oppose to Carolmooredc. Can't help what I see from outside the mess that is Austrian economics.--v/r - TP 23:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

[insert]TP, that question will be decided by Arbcom. What I am saying is that I did not misbehave in the matter which prompted Srich to launch this ANI. It's pretty simple and if you didn't see anything to justify your characterization of my behavior in the current dispute, then I do feel it's not appropriate for you to make such statements about me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you say above: "I'm a center of which disputes? None since the Arbitration." The case began in late January of this year. Judging from the occurrences of your signature and the tenor of your remarks at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Talk:Murray Rothbard, Talk:Robert P. Murphy, and User talk:Steeletrap since that time (not an exhaustive list), I think it's safe to say you have not remained aloof from the dispute during the arbitration. Even if you are talking only about the instant dispute at Talk:Walter Block then you still seem to be embroiled there, having chided Srich there twice just a day or two ago. alanyst 04:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst: Excuse me, I thought it was clear that the context for the current ANI and the behavioral issue is the discussion which began when you returned to the Arbcom talk page recently to report that there was bad behavior continuing. At that time I pointed out to you that Binksternet and I had not misbehaved or squabbled in the timeframe you identified. I didn't say above (and given your familiarity with the context, I'm surprised you did not understand) since the beginning of the Arbitration. However, it's now clear that I should have said "since the close of the Arbitration evidence and workshop pages" or something to that effect. As to my comments to Srich, you can call it "chide" if you like, but frankly that is not a helpful description of my clear, on-topic, substantive statement in response to his edit summary and subsequent elaborations on it. I addressed you on your talk page a short while ago so that we would not need to clutter this ANI with comments such as this. I know you are sincere and well-intentioned but I reiterate my opinion that you are not exercising due care in your statements about other editors at this sensitive time. SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Our opinions seem to be irreconcilable at this point, so let us amicably disengage and let others opine as to the suitability of my proposal. alanyst 04:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What's amicable about you misrepresenting my behavior in the context of the current "voluntary IBAN"s and "voluntary topic bans" and the factors which Srich cited as the topic of this ANI? Misrepresenting other editors is a form of personal attack. If you have forgotten the sequence of events or are not familiar with the details of everyone's behavior since posting ended at Arbcom, it's all still there for the record. It's not a difference of opinion, and I feel it's disrespectful and counterproductive for you to insinuate yourself so deeply in these matters if you are not inclined to be thorough, clear and accurate in your statements about other editors. Incidentally I don't see that anyone has even notified Binksternet of this ANI. SPECIFICO talk 04:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a good start, but this can't last. Something else would have to be implemented in the long run. Epicgenius (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: That would probably be where the current Arbcom case comes in. (Hopefully they'll be able to find a good solution where so many others have failed.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Grudgingly Support I don't believe I should be banned, but if that's what it takes to get CMDC and Rich to stop their tendentious editing, I support it.Steeletrap (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support on Austrian economics and libertarianism biographies Almost all the articles that have been in dispute are WP:Biographies of living persons-related, yet somehow innumerable complaints by several editors about BLP issues on several noticeboards have not been dealt with properly by Admins, leading to arbitration. In any case...

I'd like to note that, I did ask here at the beginning of Arbitration for an injunction on editing of Austrian economics articles. Also, I have not edited any Austrian economics-related biographies or articles, etc. since the voluntary edit restriction went into effect.

I also recommended as a remedy in Arbitration that Steeletrap and SPECIFICO be banned from all libertarian articles because of concerns about their BLP-related edits in libertarianism articles.

However, this proposal is overly broad since it bans me from the many articles on libertarianism I have edited over seven years only because two editors choose to make controversial edits on a few libertarian biographies. That is manifestly unfair and just invites trolls (and sockpuppets) to find ways to ban editors they don’t like from all articles in a subject area by causing ridiculous controversies in a few articles and harassing the editor about them. That is not a very wise precedent, is it??

If Admins choose to make such an overly-wide ban, they might consider including @The Four Deuces: since he also spars with SPECIFICO/Steeletrap frequently, has taken them to noticeboards, engaged in the Arbitration, and edits quite a bit in libertarianism articles.

Also I’ve asked as an Arbitration remedy that SPECIFICO be interaction banned from me because of his history of following me to articles on completely different topics and reverting my edits or criticizing my talk page comments. Feel free to impose such a site-wide interaction ban now, and include Steeletrap who also has followed me, if less frequently. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your tendentious and ill-informed edits to barely notable and non-notable libertarian pages are problems. Thus edits to all libertarian pages should fall under the topic ban. Steeletrap (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note I have temporarily topic banned User:Steeletrap (pending the Arbcom close) with a somewhat milder version of the above, over an issue unrelated to the original poster's complaint. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: the community can impose editing restrictions similar to Arbcom restrictions. See WP:0RR. So lock the page already and allow only admin edits that have been agreed on the talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• That won't stop spraying of the dispute across umpteen other noticeboards, nor are the disputes necessarily confined to one article - there has been more than one involved since the ArbCom case started. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Until the voluntary editing restrictions started a couple weeks ago, in 2014 I pretty stopped significant editing except on articles already under contention since SPECIFICO (and to a less extent Steeletrap) would not stop following me to articles they had not edited before. I did not want to bring the conflicts to the articles. In fact, this arbitration was started by someone after I complained here in January to an Admin that SPECIFICO was continuing to Wikihound me. An uninvolved editor there announced he was requesting Arbitration (see last sentence). (More details here.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)::::Am I reading this right? You'd pretty much stopped until the voluntary restrictions? Meaning that you started again after them? Also, define "significant", explain why you were still involved in ones already under contention, etc. I really don't see the point of your response here except as yet another attempt to sling mud at those with whom you've had disagreements (ie: to finagle a mention of wikihounding that is seemingly not related to the Austrian issues). That is something which you do a lot. Since the proposal includes a temporary IBAN, the alleged hounding would go away. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording is too broad For example, CarolMooreDC for years been a solid researcher and contributor on libertarian articles unrelated to the current disputes. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot find a single person who agrees with your endorsement of CMDC's "research" and is not on the same side of the ideological spectrum. Find me a pro-Israel liberal who thinks she contributes "solid research" to the community; you won't be able to do so. Good research is respected by both sides of the political spectrum. Steeletrap (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the above a gratuitous personal attack? Or am I supposed to contact a bunch of editors (organized by political orientation, evidently) to get opposing opinions? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Only in death does duty end. — goethean 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would prevent these editors from participating in their own ArbCom case. You think I am joking? Look at the current request by Lecen to have a topic ban lifted that he himself requested. He has already been blocked after making an inquiry into whether he can comment on the topic bans of the other editors in this topic. —Neotarf (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Neotarf: The interaction restriction says: "The editors shall not interact with or mention each other except at the Austrian Economics arbitration pages." Perhaps you missed the bolded part? alanyst 02:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @alanyst: Read WP:IBAN. "If editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to...make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". What do you think the admins are gonna read, the policy or some archived ANI discussion? I'm not saying that's the way it should be, I'm saying that's the way it is. —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  Any admin who notices the parties interacting at Arbitration and is aware that they are under the restriction is more than likely to be aware of the exception I have pointed out to you. And in the unlikely event that some admin waltzes in and blocks one or more of them as per your scenario, I will personally pursue a reversal of that action as soon as I become aware of it. I really don't see that kind of thing happening. Far more likely is that without these temporary restrictions while the Arbitration case is pending, the dispute will continue to fester and spread. alanyst 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Neotarf: even the strictest reading of WP:IBAN allows for dispute resolution. See WP:BANEX which says, "Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following: [...] Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution...". In this case, it is "stated otherwise" with specific wording in the ban proposal allowing them to participate in the Arbcom case. I guess I just don't understand the objection here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @User talk:Adjwilley, that's how I would interpret it, and I see others have a similar interpretation to mine, but that's not how it goes down at ArbCom. If you look at WP:BANEX again, the exact wording is: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." This has been interpreted at WP:ARCA and at WP:AE to mean you can only comment on YOUR OWN BAN and not on any restrictions on the person you have the ban with. Here's the diff [227]. In posting his evidence, the editor had made a question of whether he was allowed to comment, assuming that he was, and asking to be informed if otherwise, but as a result of the conversation between an arb and an enforcement admin in this diff, the editor was blocked for a month with no further discussion. I think some of the other arbs were a bit shocked, and indicated they would entertain an unblock request, but the editor was completely demoralized and just posted a retirement banner. These content disputes can end up being waged on many levels. —Neotarf (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here's another example. In this case evidence is presented of someone violating their topic ban, but the clerks are instructed to remove the diffs, since the person presenting the evidence is under an interaction ban with the individual. —Neotarf (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for the explanation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not to say the Arbcom would pay any attention to, or try to enforce a community interaction ban, but there are some rather large differences in expectations here between the community and the few arbs who have weighed in on the subject; I think some people who have asked for interaction bans in the past have regretted it. —Neotarf (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternative: topic bans but not interaction bans

• Oppose interaction bans and support topic bans preventing those who espouse the idea that all taxation is theft instead of a means of supporting trade, and those in support of people who do, from editing articles on politics and economics. In this dispute, one side is correct and the other side is incorrect, so restrictions should not be symmetric. EllenCT (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: What about those who think only land tax is not theft? Or communities should decide if they want to call such financial commitments taxes or user fees or voluntary contributions? Or those who think taxes support government but hurt trade? (I'm sure dozens more variations on these themes could be found or imagined.) If we are going to impose ideological dictates, we better be very specific. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 09:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this alternate proposal. If you want to pursue a political agenda, find somewhere else to do it. The very act of making this proposal smacks of someone who should themselves be topic banned. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment What EllenCT really seeks is a topic ban for editors who don't let her post whatever she wants and now she's venue shopping. Here are just a few of the RFCs that have gone against her POV pushing:

1. Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth,
2. Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_income_inequality_effects,
3. Talk:Progressive_tax#Is_this_material_topical_to_the_progressive_tax_article.3F.

Mattnad (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Robomod

Robomod has been adding external links to fashionmodeldirectory.com since its first edit, now also crosswiki. I'm doubtful about good or bad faith. The template itself is questionable and imho that's clearly spam which should be checked by local sysops. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Sysops. Dear Vituzzu. I'm not a spammer, spambot or anything that wants to harm Wiki at all. The reason why I have been adding a few links to FMD is simple. They have revamped their website and their new designer profiles (all profiles actually) are more than just useful for Wikipedia. The interconnectivity brings you from a designer profile to the brand of the designer , up to all the editorials , advertisements and works that have been done by the designer. From there you have the featured models, booked agencies. Generally speaking, I believe and many on Wiki do, that FMD offers the user a lot of informative material. And that's what external links are about.

I've not "only" done links to FMD, I actually write clearly on my user-profile what I am into on Wikipeda. I've contributed a lot of editorial work and also other external sources such as imdb. I love fashion and I love models, designers and brands. I also admit that I love FMD and that I spend hours hours on that website. If you consider the links I've added to you the designers being non-informative and spam, please highlight them and I will personally remove them and apologize for decreasing the quality on that parts. I don't think there are any. I'm also fine with being supervised in the future to show and prove that I am only acting in good faith.

I also believe that my judgment of how important fashion information is, is above the average wiki-editor and I’d love to point the perfect example and I kindly ask you all to consider the following under a neutral point-of-view:

I have linked to FMD from Driess van Noten with the following link:

http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/dries-van-noten/ . The link provided contains an image of Dries (he is an awesome designer btw!) , describes with new content the designer himself and his look (wiki doesn’t do that).

From there the user is able to click on the associated brands: http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/dries-van-noten/brands/ , which is only one in this case, but others like Versace have dozens of brands.

From there again, you have the brand profile , which to be honest should also be listed in the external links .

The brand profile (http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/) offers even more about Dries as a brand, and includes contact details but the most important is: it shows me his last fashion shows http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/shows/ and 560 (!) fully credited editorials : http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/editorials/ .

I assume that Vituzzu didn’t notice this immense set of information when he/she accused me of being a spam, but I totally understand the concerns as mentioned above.

Generally speaking, I kindly ask you to not take any measures against me and my work on Wiki. I love Wikipedia and I love FMD, and with regards to all the information used here on Wikipedia which comes from FMD since the very beginning of Wikipedia (thousands of references?), >>> Please continue reading at the bottom my final pleading.

As for the crosswiki accusation: I'm multilingual , I'm fluent in Italian (sono anche cittadino italiano :)), German, mostly with French, even Croatian, Russian and a few more. I study languages. I also invite you to consider the fact that the remark in bold at the top of the page, saying "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." was not followed, I would have been happy to have this discussed earlier. Kind regards ► robomod 11:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use imdb as a good example - it's not a reliable source. From a quick check, FMD is as bad as imdb and should never be used on Wikipedia of any language - using it would violate WP:EL and WP:SPAM. ES&L 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You probably don't have the necessary background to know whether FMD is a good reliable source or not. I'm into fashion and I actually worked for a fashion label with both FMD and models.com, we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns. If you consider FMD and IMDB to be so bad, then I believe 99% of the links should be removed and most fashion articles would have to be removed from Wikipedia as they rely on information of these websites. Furthermore, only accusing isn't the way here, tell me how and why you consider FMD not being reliable? They are a kind of authority in fashion business and I think you didn't check the facts with your "Quick check" (http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/info/about/). I also couldn't find any violations, you are welcome to point them out here. ► robomod 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns" ... taadaaaa! And that's the reason it's not acceptable as an RS. Muchos gracias :-) ES&L 13:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At that time, the brands sent the original images of the fashion shows and I am sure they still do. Otherwise how could they have 1Mio credited fashion images? It's actually reliable that way rather than getting the material from "anyonmous users". Wouldn't you agree? ► robomod 13:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

>that wants to harm Wiki at all

Sigh.

>adding a few links to FMD is simple

A few? Try a few hundred.

>They have revamped their website

When exactly was this? You've been adding links to this website since your third edit, which was nearly six years ago. Also, are you trying to promote this website? That paragraph reads suspiciously like a sales pitch to me. We have a guideline on external links and your fluff does not address this.

>many on Wiki do

[citation needed]

>I also believe that my judgment of how important fashion information is

The lack of referenced content you have added in contrast to the number of links speaks otherwise.

> I also think that Wikipedia owes this to FMD.

Huh?

>we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns... It's actually reliable that way rather than getting the material from "anyonmous users"

I was wondering why the site's profiles sounded like vapid promotionalism. What about the things the brands don't tell you?

Now for the million dollar question: why are the overwhelming majority of your edits and link additions to this website? You should have broader editing interests, having been here for six years and made over 1300 edits. MER-C 13:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was that much. I agree that I was kinda crazy for fashion a few years ago. I am not related to Ford Models nor FMD. As for FMD, I've been helping in the past with submissions but stopped after they started to rarely accept user submissions. I do have two editors in my FB-profile but don't know them personally. That's all. When I wrote "owe" I meant that many articles on Wikipedia rely on their information. It was not meant in any bad way. I just feel that we need an administrator here who is also into fashion and understands the work of a designer. I must admit, it's horrible to get dashed by a couple friendly(?) administrators. Addendum: The revamp motivated me to add links, like it was back in 2010 at their last revamp. You see the parallels? I agree with your comment that I should have more interests than fashion alone. I'll change that in my behaviour. ► robomod 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see this here at last, though I'd have thought Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam would be a more appropriate venue. This is major, wide-ranging, long-term spamming. {{Fashiondesigner}} was nominated for deletion by SilkTork in 2012, but the spam aspect did not come up in the discussion, such as it was. That template has 353 transclusions, {{Fashionmodel}} has 613, {{Fashionlabel}} 29. We seem to have 1857 external links to www.fashionmodeldirectory.com. A large proportion of those appear to have been added by just one user. I suggest that their utility to that website is lot greater than their utility to Wikipedia, and that they should be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"their utility to that website is lot greater than their utility to Wikipedia" . Please have a look at the model profiles my dear, how many information come from FMD? What benefit should they have from a link to a designer that has probably no visits per day? Viceversa you have for example 600 galleries to the brand or designer or model related? However, I leave the decision to the sysops and belive and hope they don't see it one-sided as you all do . I apologized but I am even more sorry for FMD that due to my behaviour I have probably ruined their reputation on Wikipedia. ► robomod 14:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you edited Wikipedia under any other names since you started editing as Robomod in 2008? NebY (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have probably edited many articles, especially not-fashion-realted ones, more spontaneous without logging in. I should have logged in more often to prove that I am not a stupid spammer, as what I am exposed now. I did the triple of edits in the content and without log in, when I read an article and noticed mistakes (I suffer from perfectionism). Shouldn't be an excuse at all. I'm sad that my username may be deleted now. ► robomod 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but that's not quite what I was asking. Have you edited while logged in with another name? (BTW, I don't believe anyone's saying they'll delete your username.) NebY (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry. No, actually I have only this account. Is that somehow relevant? ► robomod 15:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is. You mentioned above that "many articles on Wikipedia rely on their information" so I looked for references to fashionmodeldirectory.com on Wikipedia and who had added them. On checking contribution histories, I saw the familiar signs of one person editing first with one account, then with another. One of those accounts was Robomod. I thought I should give you the opportunity to save some of your reputation here by owning up to those edits and revealing account names. I invite you to do so now. NebY (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Which reputation? I have no other accounts. "familiar signs"? Maybe someone copied the annotation, as I did in the past and others did as well. I think the SysOps can look that up anyway. This is turning into stoning like with the Talibans. Did anyone of you fabulous guys answer to my questions? I argumented everything and you are just trying to put dirt over me , over and over. Now I know what kind of people are managing Wikipedia. Do whatever you all must do as this is so ridiculous and you have fun in torturing people who try to argue seriously. ► robomod 15:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not someone who manages Wikipedia - not by a long shot. I've written up what I've found at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod; there's space for you and others to comment there. NebY (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a bad person to try to widen this witch-hunt. I hope you were very happy for at least a few hours but note that they decided that I am not one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod/Archive

• Just as a last note before I leave the place: It is said that nobody of those who bashed me now have answered the questions I asked. I apologized and I also defended myself with argument whcih were left apart. I hope the sysops don't judge my wrong contributing, but moreover look at what is found at the end of the links. It's not spam, it gives you much more information about all the profiles I have linked and I thought that this is the understanding of adding an external link. Please consider the above example of how much of further information a Wikipedia-user is able to find by following it. Thanks for reading me. ► robomod 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I personally find the information provided in the FMD website quite useful. I have requested for a few modifications to be done in a number of profiles in the past and they require members to provide reliable sources beforehand, regarding the new information being submitted, if not it gets rejected. That speaks a lot of how professional and accurate they strive to be. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the fashion-related articles in Wikipedia are based on information from FMD. Just take a look at the Chanel article, for example, and how many notes use FMD as their reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel#References). If links to FMD are removed, I'm pretty sure it would hurt Wikipedia more than FMD, but then the same should be done with links to Models.com, IMDB or other similar informative databases. -- Lancini87 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that we have here administrators who are not able to evaluate this. They see my account with many links to them and for them it's spam now. Noone of the above have visited the website from my example above. Where the link to Dries van Noten turns into an information flood that Wiki can't provide. And I agree, they should remove all articles that contain information from FMD. After all FMD is just like a fashion-Wikipedia, with the difference that you can't just edit and add funny information. ► robomod 16:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the editors here can properly evaluate a modeling website, posting links to your website shows a clear conflict of interest WP:COI ...Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote a product, service or website and adding links to your website in external links on multiple articles is a kind of self-promotion. As far as reliable sources, Wikipedia prefers independent, secondary source that have some kind of editorial process (peer-reviewed journals, mainstream newspapers who have managing editors, books that are not self-published, etc.). What is not prized is a blog or website that reflects a particular individual's point of view, unless the article is about that individual and his POV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. Please note that this is not my website, but I wish it was. Your comment is practically in line with what FMD is. They are seen as a neutral authority within the fashion industry, just like models.com, but with the difference that they don't accept any advertisings and promotions from any listed entities (see their about-page posted earlier : It says "FMD is not a place to buy promotion"). And they have independent managing editors [[228]] just like Wikipedia has, some of them are accredited journalists (two of them I have on Facebook as mentioned earlier). I think I shall invite the editors from FMD to this discussion, since we are now talking about a punishment of their property although the mistake of "spamminG was mine. ► robomod 18:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

i personally don't think that this is such a big issue at all. why make an issue over legitimate and reliable content information from a source that is most comprehensive when it comes to fashion data. if you look closely you will see that 90 percent of models info comes from the fashion model directory. for that matter if we are speaking about the legitimacy and reliability of data then for that matter why not question models.com, supermodels.nl or any other such service? imho i honestly feel that this is a totally biased and unjust situation that is being directed in effort towards User:Robomod. for that matter there are thousands and thousands of companies that have users on wikipedia editing and posting content on their behalf. why is the legitimacy not in question for them? if your intent is to bash user:Robomod i think the message has been sent across loud and clear. Clintong (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I did a mistake, I apologized for linking to many times (although my userpage states that I'm linking to other databases since ever!) and now they are trying to punish a fashion database that was source of thousands of fashion articles. ► robomod 18:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Simply put I just don't see the difference between this and our reliance on IMDB at all.--v/r - TP 01:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see something else which is not mentioned here.. FMD is really more than a database of profiles like IMDB. FMD also has a constantly-updated news section which gives professional reports of events of the fashion world. It conducts and publishes its own interviews with the models, such as in the Model of the Month section. In this way, and the way I use the site, I see it like an entertainment magazine which also has a huge database that consolidates and links the information. I haven't had time to go through all of Robomod's history, but it seems plainly wrong to discredit FMD as a source. It seems to be as reliable as any entertainment magazine. I know we are not talking about academic journals here, but this is fashion journalism (what do you expect?). In that realm, they are respected professionals. PdrMorales (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Honorable Wikipedia-Community.

We have taken note of the various statements found within this topic. First of all, we clearly distance ourselves from any activity on Wikipedia and we are not in any way related to the users who contributed about and for The Fashion Model Directory on Wikimedia projects. We also don't pay for such legal services. We run an old but updated Wikipedia license , Wikipedia License from 2001, that defines what underlines the exchange of data and content. This agreement survived thirteen years and was set up with the young Wikipedia team, and is still subject to simplify the usage of our material and the partnership with Wikipedia. Thus, we are not seeing this issue as a legit call to deprecate information from Wikipedia that has come from our fashion database. For any further bad reputation that is caused herein, we will need to clarify this with the Wikipedia management directly, and take the responsible persons to account. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me or our editors board by sending your concerns to wikipedia(AT)fashionmodeldirectory.com . Yours sincerely - Anne Roth (FMD Executive Board) --Fmdwiki (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

and take the responsible persons into account Potential legal threat? KonveyorBelt 01:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. How I read it, they are essentially saying "Hey guys, we weren't involved in the crap that happened. We have always supported Wikipedia, we continue to license all of our content to your needs, and hope to continue a good relationship with Wikipedia. We hope that you don't stop using our content after 13 years of a good relationship. Please feel free to have the WMF talk to our folks anytime if you have any concerns related to us. If anyone from our staff is involved, tell us and we will hold them accountable." That's my translation.--v/r - TP 01:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO, they shouldn't have even started this thread in the first place if the issue was so petty. The best thing to do in cases like this, is for them (or anyone else) to not even bring up the topic at all.

And is this a sub-thread to the section above, or a new section? I can't tell, but it looks like it is unrelated to the section above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

i dont think this is a new thread, it is related to the section above. i think someone should merge it into the robomod discussion thread. WRT to what theyre trying to say i kinda agree with User:TParis, i went thru their wikipedia license note and it seems they are delivering 8000 vector logos and have no problem in having their content here on wiki as long as it is in tune with our policies. WRT to User:Konveyor Belt point on a threat: the way i read the situation is theyre basically trying to say "look guys we did not have anything to do with the spamming,but should the wiki community feel there is a abuse of usage feel free to let us know and we will take necessary action against that user/persons".... to User:Epicgenius, i do not think it was they who brought up the topic, but an administrator whose talk page wud seem to reflect a bias with the intent of damaging their templates and content herein just bcuz some user was spamming and not following our guidelines... at some point everyone seems to have lost focus of what the intent of this whole discussion was, it started with an admin bashing a user for spamming content here, but not only that the discussion went on to even talk about penalizing the source (FMD) as well. Admins should be thorough in their opinions without bias and have a neutral point not just in the content but also in their insinuations without the abuse of power... if this issue is not such a big thing i think we can all agree that it should be closed and let the topic lie to rest instead of dragging it on and on and inviting unnecessary attention from external parties Clintong (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Final pleading

• Dear Sysops, Dear Wiki

As an addition to the final word at the end here and the above: How many dead links did I remove over the years? I always stated my position that I will be adding wiki-conform links, removing links, removing bad typos, removing spam-links(!) and whatever I did. I am still sorry and apologize that the editing went in a one-sided direction. Also being denounced by an “administrator” like User:Vituzzu , who, after reading his Talk-page, seems to be everything else than a very responsible and courtly (probably young?) person. In my opinion, he does not deserve to be an administrator if you look at his way of talking to users. Even if someone calls me whatever, I don’t bite back like that as an administrator and move down to a level of that sort. He likes to open answers disrespectfully and fully dismissive like “Senti qua” (ma con chi parli cosi??), talking like the user would be some piece of shit. I’m, not referring to me in this case, but to the conversations on the linked talk page. Dear Sysops, you really should consult an impartial Italian administrator of higher status that should evaluate his talks there. I also wanted to note that at least he, as an administrator, must abide to the rules from Wikipedia. In this case you have it bold at the top of this page, saying “Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.” Vituzzu did not do that but I was open for any conversation and I always read my user messages. As for the rest, I overvalued the accusation from Vituzzu after reading through the messages again and some more comments here. I feel like a warning is sufficient and I will prove you that I am not a spammer (look at my final words please) and I am not a spambot (my nickname comes from Robocop, one of my fav movies = Robot Modification , but I am not a bot) and I am also not a sock-puppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod/Archive (read how easy you get stoned on Wiki please! I'm accused here and immediately others try to destroy you. Sad.). I have no interest in neither harming Wiki nor linking anyone who does NOT deserve being linked, if for example based on the information taken from that page. At the same time I consider Wikipedia an open encyclopedia that should not just steal information and take work from others without annotating the source, especially when in the case I mentioned (Dries van Noten - actually all pages), the linked website is often the source of the article and offers more information (yes, I’m riding on Dries van Noten’s entry with 600 editorial galleries! – the probably worst example tho as Chanel has over 2000 editorials[[229]] - credited information that can't be shown on Wiki for copyright issues probably?). I also want to invalidate all the funny comments from the guys above who were talking about FMD and IMDB and other professional databases being sooooo bad, when Wiki has millions of outgoing mass-links like to http://www1.cpdl.org/ for example, for every composer? Generally I found mass-links to many open Wiki-like-websites. So my question is, do you consider an open source Wiki-website( like there are many around - not wikipedia.org I mean!), where vandals or any anonymous (not for CPDL , please don’t get me wrong I love that website!) user can edit and write down what someone wants, as a more reliable source than a professional database that reviews and proofs submitted edits hundred times? (will come back to this later below) Please continue reading all messages, as I specifically mention Wikipedia , and also the note to Anne from FMD. Thank you very much!

• Dear ES . I guess you have no idea about fashion. If I don’t have any clue about certain things, I prefer to stay quiet. You discredit websites and have a way of talking that reminds me of User:Vituzzu. Reading that you are one of the most active users on Wikipedia is not a quality sign and makes me sad.

• Dear MER-C. You are an administrator on Wikipedia and the ironical way of how you mucked around with me (“sigh” etc) is usually not deescalating like an administrator should handle such situations. I missed the neutrality towards me as a person. You sounded more like a biased friend of User:Vituzzu, but I hope I am wrong and anyhow I fully respect you as you were partially right in your argument.

• Dear Justlettersandnumbers . I noticed your continuously deleting of all the links I added. Did you even look at ONE link of them? Don’t you think Wikipedia readers could be interested in HOW the designer works? How their clothes look like? Did you EVER read one of the linked profiles? I can answer you this question (sorry for being bad educated in this case): No! You are probably a "sock-puppet" (now that I learnt what it is) or a nominal member that just wants to muck around and has fun in discrediting others. You removed links to Viktor and Rolf, Dries, Chanel(probably?) and many others. Wikipedia has actually NOTHING apart from a few statistical facts about these designers. If you followed the link you would have had hours of material to browse and read and if I knew about the Wikipedia agreement with FMD, I would have copied and re-edited it just for you too. In my eyes you could be an accomplice of stealing content from other sites by discrediting them. Good job!

• Dear Anne from FMD! I didn’t harm FMD’s reputation at all! I approached and invited FMD to this topic with the intention to help and as a result I get “take the responsible persons to account”. If you want to take someone to account you should do that with the accuser or you should consider taking someone to account who removes the links, like Justlettersandnumbers, who has removed links from profiles that are mostly based on FMD like the Chanel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel#References) article (and not to forget hundreds of model profiles who are sometimes a copy of FMD profiles) mentioned above by User:Lancini87 user . Why don’t they credit you? How could I know about your agreements with Wikipedia? Which in my opinion is ridiculous and needs to be redone if you look at the one-sided benefits. You should keep an eye at what they are doing with your content! They steal and take ownership of it and then remove you even from the references. This is Wikipedia in 2014 where anarchy and vandalism has reached almost the administrators level, dear Anne! You and your team should sometimes put an eye outside the fashion world! I expected some more professional support from you to be honest. Thanks anyway!

• to the rest. Thank you for sharing the same point of view and the support. Fashion is not for everyone as it seems.

Final Word: All my arguments with which I defended myself are left unanswered because there have not been any opposite arguments to it. Since this case applies to my user account for being a spammer, I ask the responsible SysOps and Administrators to not classify my account, my person and my edits as spam and not to ban or delete me. I clarified from the very first minute and beginning of my work on Wikipedia (see User:Robomod). I was always a member of WikiProject External links, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Persondata, Wikipedia Neutrality Project and after all the initiator did not approach me before posting a grievance about me here. I admit that my work became too one-sided after my interests turned in that direction, and respectfully ask you discharge me of spamming and to leave the cause as it is, with a more than noticed warning and a pain in the stomach. I furthermore promise to improve my editorial work on Wikipedia and I am open to an assigned supervisor. Always in good faith ► robomod 05:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've taken on my suggestion to broaden your editing interests, so this thread has served its purpose. (Please note that when discussing things, the likelihood of your posts being read decreases with length. I also think you should skim User:MER-C/SmartQuestions, it illustrates why I had some issues with what you wrote above.) MER-C 14:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for both suggestions, here and there. Yes, I will try to defocus and diversify my edits. As soon as I plan any mass edit, I will consult with an administrator first (preferably with you if you allow). Mass edit in the sense of a bigger job like adding the 80k vector logos to wiki-profiles that are offered in the wiki document there (just kidding!). I will also skim in the future. Promised! ► robomod 18:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The above massive wall-o-text is absolute rubbish, and absolute proof of the battleground mentality that the editor has. The statement "I guess you have no idea about fashion. If I don’t have any clue about certain things, I prefer to stay quiet" is a clear attempt to tell me to shut up, and is a direct insult at the same time. So what if I've never written an article in the weekend fashion section? I'm an admin because my understanding of policy and process, not because I can tell a pencil skirt from a poodle skirt. I provided a quick analysis of the reliability of a website - which based on your own comments AND those of someone from FMD was 100% correct, and I thank you both for that. IMHO, you're a danger to this project because a) you refuse to listen to sage advice, and b) you lash out at anyone who dares to provide such advice - yet, you're requesting a WP:MENTOR? What do you expect a mentor to do...just say "nice job, keep it up?" No, a mentor will say "feck, don't do that again" and "NOOOO ... the policy says X and Y". Even when the rep from FMD tells you that you're embarassing them, you attack them! That's absolutely unacceptable behaviour.
• My recommendation as an editor, as an admin, and as a human being is that User:Robomod be put and kept on an extremely short leash for at least 6 months. This would include:

1. Immediate mentorship from a QUALIFIED mentor
2. No linking to FMD unless approved by their mentor
3. Strict civility parole
4. 1RR across all fashion-related articles

• Personally, I'd have thrown in a week block for CONTINUING his personal attacks, however, anything less than the above is merely telling the editor and the rest of the project that attacks and wikilawyering are ok around here ES&L 10:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dear ES&L. If you read my other discussions with MER-C, you'll note that I conceded most of my focus-caused faults and to skim down instead of battling. To my supposed insult, which is actually more a suggestion of what I do usually, I wanted to let you know that you were the first to answer to this incident and especially after reading Vituzzu's talk page, I felt like you were the same person. Although I don't agree that it was a direct insult, I hope you accept my apologies for both. I said sorry to FMD, although they didn' react and I want to apologize to all who felt offended during this discussion. To your recommendation, I'm ok with to the first two points (I actually asked for it - I am fine with it, also with two mentors), I partially agree with the third and am abiding, and I don't see any sense in the 4th (1RR) as the edits are not only FMD related and with your first two points I believe you are more than safe, don't you agree? Besides I fixed many broken and dead links (like I did with composers in these last days) and for the above mentioned reasons, as a fashion connoisseur (let me be that), I consider it to be of more than just an additional value. If you give me a few examples where this isn't the case, I will personally remove them and stop adding links forever and cancel myself from the Wikipedia External Links Project. Apart from that, it would just cause FMD to hate me more than they already do (?), plus having lost a lot of time while trying to improve the info on wikipedia in good faith with links to the works and images of the designer, which can't be shown on Wiki for copyright issues (As a reader I prefer a link to it, than having to google it). Please understand my pov here. On the last point I (have to) disagree, and rather agree to MER-C's statement. But if you all feel better with blocking me for a week, I am ok , although I don't see the sense anymore as I got your messages. I hope we are good. ► robomod 11:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, you are thrashing around way too much. Please stop, you only are making things things worse for yourself. You need to actually show that you have taken on the advice above, otherwise you'll be back here and likely blocked. MER-C 13:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

By "trashing around" you mean writing too much for my defense here? If so, I'll take a pause until further notice or until the judge (?) asks me. ► robomod 13:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it also refers to what you wrote as well. MER-C 12:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New name for vandalism-only editor

User:Xxxeeexxx123 was a short-lived vandalism-only account, amongst their ~10 edits were some at Coureur des bois, an example relevant to the next sentence is [230]. That account got blocked. Shortly thereafter a new account User:Phaydenvideos (IMO clearly the same person) was formed and their one lifetime edit was this edit [231] to repeat vandalism including same unique weird type of stuff. I'm fine with watching that one article, but last time they also went to other articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I took care of it since it was pretty obvious. Normally, WP:SPI is the preferred venue, although it is currently overloaded and slower. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was viewing it as mainly a "vandalism-only editor" (rather than sockpuppetry) situation, with the linkage to the other account being only to support that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, WP:AIV is the preferred venue for obvious vandalism, even if it does involve some socking. SPI is usually too backlogged for simple cases of vandalism socks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

COI, 3RR, inappropriate content at Russell Targ

An editor Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has identified as the subject of the article has repeatedly (5 times) inserted an inappropriate comment as content. There is clear violation of 3RR and COI. The same editor has removed sourced content repeatedly and inserted unsupported puffery repeatedly.

Insertion of comment diff. Removal with explanation diff. Reinsertion with additional inappropriate content and indication of COI diff. Reremoval of comment with additional mention of commentary not being appropriate diff. Third insertion of comment diff. Removal (by me) of comment diff. Fourth insertion of comment diff. Removal of comment diff. Fifth insertion of comment diff. I realize that more than one editor may have stepped over 3RR but this is a case of an editor identifying as the subject ("my research") of an article repeatedly inserting an inappropriate comment into the content of an article. The appropriate content from the source cited in the comment is already in the article with full citation, "In 1980, Charles Tart claimed that a rejudging of the transcripts from one of Targ and Puthoff’s experiments revealed an above-chance result." The source is also first party as Targ is a coauthor.

Repeated removal of sourced content diff, diff.

Insertion of unsourced puffery (no source says pioneer) diff, repeatedly reinserted said puffery with sources that don't support the content (partial citations of primary publications don't support claims of firsts, no secondary source stating these were firsts or are notable)diff, diff. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Torgownik (talk · contribs) who claims to be Targ himself has tried to delete criticism from his article before on Russtarg (talk · contribs), it's obvious that the IP that was deleting any criticism from the article last week was also him 108.68.105.17 (talk · contribs). He seems to want to remove the criticism of David Marks from the article or claim that he has rebutted Mark's criticisms but that isn't the case considering Marks published a paper in Nature in 1986 which Targ did not respond to which contained valid criticisms (David Marks, Christopher Scott. (1986). Remote Viewing Exposed. Nature 319: 444.). If Torgownik is indeed Targ then he also doesn't understand Wikipedia policy because he's putting his own personal commentary into the article. He keeps doing this and now he has inserted nonsense into the lead. Goblin Face (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked the editor for 48 hours. If he returns with similar editing after the block, I will be willing to consider a longer block, perhaps even an indefinite block if he shows no sign of intending to do other editing other than self-promotion and suppression of criticism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Unified Modelling Language, policy violation (WP:V)

Justification: WP:V states that all content must be sourced, and any editor that inserts (or reinserts) such content MUST include a reliable source, otherwise it may be removed (and cannot be replaced unless reliable sources are provided).

User:Walter Görlitz is violating the policy by insisting that content unsupported by its references should be on the page, and also content without any references. He has revoked me twice (and I have informed him that he is violating WP:V#Burden, only for him to revoke me again). I cannot reinsert the content due to 3RR and it would be edit warring.

See [232] and Talk:Unified Modeling Language.

mthinkcpp (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not state that you are an unsuitable editor simply that you were edit warring rather than discussing and coming to consensus.

What I did write was that you're misinterpreting WP:V. I indicated that it's usually more appropriate to consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step rather than deleting material unless. This is not grounds for an ANI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of the tags have been there for years, which indicates that there isn't any source for the statements (as you have had ample time to find one before removal).

From WP:V#Burden "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.", you haven't done so. mthinkcpp (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't misinterpret WP:V, it explicitly permits me to remove the content (read it). mthinkcpp (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why do you insist on removing the text for the article in question? By the way, you don't have to be an expert in the chosen field to edit an article on Wikipedia. All you have to do is go by what reliable sources say, and try to sum up the ideas the best you can therein the sources you are utilizing. I see that the source in question is just a print-based publication that cannot be accessed via the internet, so you may want to try to go to the library to do further research of your own.HotHat (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

1. It isn't just one source in question (see the diff). 2. The source you refer to was published before the item they are made to criticise existed (UML 2.x). mthinkcpp (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with HotHat.

I just came back to comment that the material has been in the article for several years. It was one of the first articles that I added to my watch list and has had very few edits for content over its life. The criticisms section has been in place since at least 2005. It does need more refs, but so does the whole article. Every paragraph in the criticisms section has at least one reference, which is rare for technology articles.

If it needs updating, then why is the content being removed and not tagged with an out of date type of template? Are the criticisms valid for any version of UML? Are the criticisms referenced? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest if the article in question is important to you for accuracy purposes Mthinkcpp that you put some actual hard work into getting it fixed rather than just deletion of entire pieces of text. I know where you both are coming from! Lets try to improve articles please...am I asking for that much.HotHat (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is that Walter Görlitz has violated Wikipedian policy in reinserting unreferenced material in an article. Walter Görlitz is obliged to provided references, otherwise the content is subject to potential removal (all in WP:V#Burden). In effect you are saying that even if the criticism section is biased, I am not allowed to remove biased content, remove text that is wrong, just because it might be right and there may be a source that supports it. IMO a misapplication of Wikipedia's templates and policies mthinkcpp (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You might like to read WP:OWN. mthinkcpp (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point on the matter, but how about trying to work with someone with respect to the article that has more experience in the subject. Or, why not do a piecemeal approach instead of "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Just try to use a scalpel instead of a hatchet. I cannot help you to much in this subject area, but an editor like Thumperward could. If it is not correctly verifiable, then it should be deleted; however, I would urge you to give it some TIME for others to help you.HotHat (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If an editor doubts / contests unsourced material, it goes out and it's up the folks wanting to put it back to find references. They may optionally chose to tag to give someone time to find sources but are not required to. NE Ent 09:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand but CAUTIOUS should be followed.HotHat (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor in question did not even discuss the changes beforehand.HotHat (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How does the editor in question know that the material is right or wrong? What gives rise to the editors deletion? These are just some of the questions that I would love to have answered.HotHat (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability is pretty clear:

The editor doesn't have to know it's wrong, they don't have to discuss it, they just have to know it's uncited. NE Ent 09:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"...any material challenged or likely to be challenged" is usually taken to mean that the removing editor should have some inkling, at least, it might be incorrect. "The sun is hot" shouldn't be deleted for lack of a citation. DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, The editor is still wrong because he/she has been removing cited material without discussion as well as the uncited, so the editor is partially in the wrong and in the right. The editor removed the entire criticisms section which has a mixture of citations and references needed, so the editor must take a scalpel!HotHat (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I provide you with the diff of evidence.HotHat (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:HotHat I supplied you with the link WP:OWN for a reason, and I have just been justified in supplying it, you have almost exactly taken your words from that page, which implies that you and some other editor feel that you own the page, please READ it. Also read WP:BOLD, I DO NOT have to discuss changes before implementing them (edit summaries for the edits are enough). mthinkcpp (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't OWN anything because I create stuff on here and other editors mutilate it to pieces, which I don't say anything about it.HotHat (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:NE Ent, am I allowed to revoke the policy infringing edits (without incurring 3RR). mthinkcpp (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not, there's no 3rr exemption for wp:v. I'm going real life, perhaps other volunteers / admins want to address WG's edit summary here [233]? NE Ent 10:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. mthinkcpp (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• You only have the right to remove V stuff that has a citation needed without discussion if another editor disagrees with a sourced edit then you have to discuss the change. You are trying to disguise the two by deleting stuff that is sourced and non-sourced in one blow.HotHat (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Do read WP:BOLD, I have the right to make any edit (provided it doesn't violate a Wikipedia Policy).

One blow? I did 17 edits, which allows one to pick the one that they feel requires discussion (rather than blanket revoke all of them). mthinkcpp (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that but Walter reverted them all, and you reinstated all the 17 edits, and then he deleted them again. My main objective and aim is for Wikipedia to achieve it best and full potential.HotHat (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• WP:V is very fine, but there is also the minor matter of Wikipedia being a collaborative community. Mthinkcpp's first edit to Unified Modeling Language was at 13:09, 7 April 2014. It's less than 24 hours later and now we have an ANI report with aggressive commentary about WP:OWN and assertions that anything without a refence nailed on it is going to be removed. How about working with other editors to improve the article? It does appear that at least some of the material may be inappropriate, but there should be no suggestion that an editor is free to go to articles and destroy anything without a reference. WP:V says that material must be verifiable—it does not say that it has to be verified right now. If an editor says "I'm challenging that material", they need to provide some explanation rather than go straight to battle. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq This is not my cup of tea, some other editor like yourself needs to figure out what goes in the trash bin and what makes the cut!HotHat (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have challenged the unsourced material by removing it, WP:V says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." This means that all the unsourced content MUST have a source provided for it - immediately - (otherwise the article will continue to violate Wikipedia's policies, and the unverified content can just be removed, again).

(Off topic) Under WP:CSECTION, having one is discouraged, especially if it is just a list of complaints (as the UML one is) about the topic, Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism, see criticism section on table. I attempted to remove the out of date criticisms (about 1.x), and integrate the one criticism about 2.x (size), which resolved the csection issue, which was rejected.

mthinkcpp (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you hung-up on the idea that the criticisms are "out-of-date"? Change your perspective, and change the copy to indicate that the criticisms are for a specific version instead.

I have no problems with removing specific material that is tagged with a CN for a long period of time. I have a problem, as should ever editor, with removing material because it's old or supported by a dead link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor admits to being a blocked editor

The blocked editor Special:Contributions/Kohelet posted at Talk:Rape#Global_view admitting he was the same person previously blocked, he now using the account Special:Contributions/2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:38E8:1612:C0B5:12B2. He is also posting as an IP address at another rape article [234] quoting racist nonsense from a racist website, as he had previously done with his original account before being blocked. Dream Focus 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• The IPv6 admits to being a sock, so blocked. The IPv4, though, I would need to see the evidence laid out that it was a sock; the geolocations of the two IP's does not match, either. Courcelles 17:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary

There appears to be a sudden, orchestrated whitewashing of Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There are five newly autoconfirmed editors with about ten edits made before they began editing Banc De Binary. Requests have been made to discuss in talk:Banc De Binary, but seems to have been met with demands and no real discussion. One of these editors was blocked per NLT. In one case an edit summary was "removed whitewashing" when in fact appeared to be performing whitewashing. Not sure what to do about this. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There's enough to say a very high likelihood of meatpuppetry going on if not outright sockpuppetry. Time for an SPI methinks. Blackmane (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Followup comment. I've left notifications on all the editors' talk pages based, hopefully I haven't missed any. Also, @Pinkbeast: has raised an SPI for all the accounts Blackmane (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to the consensus version (I can't see anything that is contentious and unsourced in that version - let me know if I am wrong) and fully protected for a week. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Odds are likely this is meat puppetry and maybe some sock puppetry. Style comparisons tell me you have two or more people involved. A CU might or might not be useful for some of these as they may be in different cities. I'm guessing much of the blocking will have to be done the old fashioned way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sockdrawer: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notsosoros, which was originally opened as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Webgrasp, but moved when it appeared Notsosoros was the oldest account. This SPI has already been checkusered and closed, with a very long list of socks, about forty, blocked and tagged. Ironically the originally supposed sockmaster, Webgrasp, turned out to be unrelated. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

Banc De Binary was fully protected because of this sockfarm. Maybe someone can lift the protection now?--Atlan (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I've restored the previous semiprotection. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

I'm a bit surprised about Webgrasp. Checkuser may not have turned anything up, but they sure quack like a duck, grinding exactly the same axe as all the others. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Compare WP:MEAT. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

If no one is actively working on the page would it make sense to keep it protected? I don't think people are done messing with it. This was an account's 11th edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banc_De_Binary&diff=603174173&oldid=602655024 165.214.12.69 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ha: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrOllie - MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
3RR: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Scapestessa reported by User:Black Kite (Result: ) Jim1138 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I've got someone who claims to be not Laurent/Cohen but senior in the company contacting me on IRC (via #wikipedia-en-help); usual run of meaningless platitudes about "finding a solution", etc. I'm pointing them to the COI policy. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Similar case

There is a mostly IP editing user, claiming to be Friedwardt Winterberg who thinks he is being denied credit for inventing the concepts of Firewall (physics) and Black hole information paradox. There may or may not be truth to his claim that he came up with these concepts and due to some politics in the physics community is being denied the credit, but there are no reliable sources linking his research to these concepts (with the exception of one footnote in the more famous Firewall paper). I came to this topic through being the closer at an RFC, where Winterberg supporters were involved in heavy socking Talk:Firewall_(physics)#RfC:_What_mention.2C_if_any.2C_should_be_made_of_Friedwardt_Winterberg.27s_2001_paper.3F Since the closer the IPs have been on repeated diatribes accusing the wiki WP:CABAL of being part of a physics conspiracy to deny him credit. (his being shunned in the physics community may be due to the fact that he famously accused Einstein of plagiarism) Also, apparently, I personally am a sock of Jimbo Wales. Not sure what should be done here, but its a persistent problem.

Diatribe diffs [235] [236] [237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244]

due to repeated insertion of credit/priority claims for Winterberg, Both articles are now semi protected, (although they will expire in a while) limiting this disruption to the talk pages for now, but its gone on for quite a while now.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The user is continuing with his personal attacks [245] [246] He is bearing the WP:TRUTH Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if a range block of 134.197.31.x and 12.72.186.x is appropriate? I personally stay away from range blocking, I know it's pathetic because I'm a professional network admin but I suck at subnetting (it is a big shame of mine). From what I can tell, though, this would only involve blocking two /24 subnets (one that geolocates to Reno and another to Salt Lake City). If this is effective we may even be able to remove the semiprotection from the articles. -- Atama頭 17:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Checking with Whois at ARIN, it looks like the former IP range is with the University of Nevada, Reno (which makes sense, Winterberg is a professor there). I don't feel like blocking an entire university for the actions of one person, so that's no good. The latter range of addresses is with AT&T Worldnet Services, so it looks like a dynamically-assigned range. This is why I dislike range blocks. My only suggestion is if talk page disruption continues, ask for the talk pages to be semi-protected at WP:RFPP and mention that this person is IP-hopping using a university's system. There's much less collateral damage in semi-protecting a talk page (even if that is something we rarely do) as opposed to blocking these IP ranges. -- Atama頭 19:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Rim sim pretending to be an admin

I had removed the icon, he restored it, someone sort him out. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Also claimed to be a GOCE co-ordinator. Have removed that as well and left them a note - they look like a new editor who is building a userpage by cut and paste from others. Hopefully that's the end of the matter unless they revert the removals. Euryalus (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps next time Darkness Shines could discuss the issue with the editor before starting an ANI thread? NE Ent 12:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent:, I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who says shit like this about me. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Refusing to discuss changes and WP:BLUDGEONing at the AfD is a rather poor way to resolve this dispute, don't you think? KonveyorBelt 20:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no dispute. I will not discuss anything with someone who attacks me just because I asked him for sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The diff of Rim sim's edit as provided above by Darkness Shines is absolutely outrageous, I am at a loss as to why this report was started by only mentioning Rim sim putting misleading material on his userpage. I am also at a loss as to why Rim sim is not blocked yet, based on that diff. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Can a non-administrator issue discretionary sanctions warnings ? Only an uninvolved admin can impose sanctions, so it would make sense that only they can issue warnings as well, which by the way the new draft makes clear. There may be POV-pushing problems with Rim sim though. Cenarium (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per the last line of Wikipedia:AC/DS#For_administrators. (arbcom is only required to get themselves elected and more or less follow policy, "making sense," while both desirable and a frequent but not universal occurrence, isn't an actual requirement) NE Ent 22:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never given an AE warning, but my understanding is that only admin can issue the warnings as only they can follow through. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually a wondrously grey area -- with anyone able to "notify" anyone else about Discretionary Sanctions in the past -- there are now proposals which will clarify/murkify everything, as is the wont of all committees since Noah had family meetings on the Ark. Collect (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I issue them sometimes, but, like that guy in that short story, "I would prefer not to". As far as I can remember, last time I did so, I asked an admin for advice first, and he suggested a particular template to use. I think he had also been accused of being the administrator in charge of dealing with communist terrorism (sic), which may have helped. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not gray A warning need not be issued by an administrator; NE Ent 22:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I had that very conversation with different admins. Some say any editor can issue a DS warning, some say only "uninvolved editors or admins" can, some say only "uninvolved admins". Some say that every warning needs to be logged in on the particular DS page, others say that doesn't matter much at all. I assume this variance is why the policy is being reviewed right now. 22:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless the admins were one of those listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members, it doesn't matter what they think (please let me know if it was one those guys or gal). NE Ent 22:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I often take administrators' opinions into account, even in cases where they are not arbcom members. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ent, individually, Arbs have no more authority than anyone else. Only Arb as a whole has more authority than you or I. That said, the people whose opinions matter more to me tend to be a mix of Arbs, Admin and Editors. For instance, in this case, you actually knew more about DS than I did, even though I have the bit and you don't. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Is it not against the rules to remove comments after they have been responded to? While I appreciate the removal of those rants, it now looks like I am talking to my imaginary friend Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The guideline is at WP:REDACT. The language is really wishy-washy. For example: If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Or look at: Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. It's difficult to figure out in our guideline what is allowed and what isn't. I think you can revert the removal of comments and cite that guideline, but I don't know if someone can be faulted for not following that guideline because of how it's written. -- Atama頭 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you do feel that it's necessary to restore that info (which constitute personal attacks) it would be courteous to at least strike them out. I think we can assume that Rim sim removed those remarks as a way of retracting those comments, which was at least a good intention for them to have. I don't like faulting someone for technically going against a guideline in an attempt to do the right thing. -- Atama頭 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Kirk loganewski

Resolved

Please help me: An edit this user made in the article Salome Alexandra did not appear to have any source for the additional content added in this edit by Kirk: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_Alexandra&diff=602833329&oldid=595346061 I had reverted the change because there was no source for the additional content added, so I posted in the edit summary as I reverted to "discuss this further on the talk page of the article." The user did comply but reverted my revert before I could reply to the discussion. The user is being unconstructive and has made a personal attack against me here in the article's history by insulting me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_Alexandra&action=history As I quote the attack, "I know you didn't like that I did not reduce the Jewish faith to the term "Pharisee" did that 4 u, removed anything not directly mentioned in the source, removed the opinion "only", made the other contentious part 2 u a footnote. OK now Jerm?" and on the talk page of the article and is POV pushing in the started discussion which I did not reply. Talk:Salome Alexandra. -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Jerm, it looks like Kirk has tried to start a conversation on the article talk page. Is there a reason you can't talk about your differences there first? While that edit summary is a bit snippy, I don't see a personal attack there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

A discussion shouldn't begin with such a negative vibe to begin with. The comment in the edit summary was unnecessary, and I could tell this user was not going to cooperate anyway because of the tone of the discussion. It was a POV view in the discussion so there was no choice but ANI. -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of negative vibes, ANI is the last resort for resolving a dispute. You should at least try to discuss the matter at the editor's talk page, the article's talk page, and/or WP:DRN before coming to ANI. As for the edit summary comment, while it's a bit uncivil, it's not a personal attack (at least IMHO). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If the user does not reply for a while like say a week. What about the edit the user made that if I don't agree with? I'll reply to the discussion, but I assume it will lead to nowhere but a drag if the user replies to this ANI. -- ♣Jerm♣729 02:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would still like the comment in the edit summary the user made to be removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_Alexandra&action=history. I find it as a personal attack although it doesn't apply to the qualifications as a personal attack or might not sound like an attack because it is not implied to anyone else but me. Having my username bashed in the article's history damages my credibility as a editor on Wikipedia. -- ♣Jerm♣729 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think if you want an edit summary redacted, you have to get it oversighted. Make your case at WP:OS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No Liz, we can wP:REVDEL them here, it doesn't need oversight. However, I do not see any recent edit-summaries in that article that meet any of Wikipedia's Oversight OR RevDel qualifications for deletion. Jerm, please read the criteria for RevDel and if you still feel something needs suppressing, can you link us to it? DP 09:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The comment made in the edit summary by Kirk here in the article's history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_Alexandra&action=history As I quote the whole thing: I know you didn't like that I did not reduce the Jewish faith to the term "Pharisee" did that 4 u, removed anything not directly mentioned in the source, removed the opinion "only", made the other contentious part 2 u a footnote. OK now Jerm? The more I read it now, it sounds like I favor POV Judaism when Kirk types it sarcastically. My username is also there displayed as a bashed username, which will damage my credibility as an editor on Wikipedia. I already sent an email to: WP:OS but no reply yet. -- ♣Jerm♣729 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw that edit, and cannot see any way, shape, or form where it violates anything that needs oversight nor REVDEL. The only thing that damages or increases your credibility on Wikipedia is your own behaviour - and I have to say, your actions in this thread, and this request are really not helping. Back away, look at things objectively, try not to see things as a slight. I don't want to say "grow a thick skin", because I believe that real attacks need to be dealt with. This is not one of those times DP 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see now, your refering to the request I made for a 'confirm account'. My behavior is only effecting you because of the message I sent you. That's why you found this topic by looking into my contributed edits. Now your being biased against me. My behavior has been good. I have done nothing wrong other than talk to you about a confirm account which was a civil message. -- ♣Jerm♣729 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And now accusations of bad faith? God Almighty, get over yourself. This is entirely about something that does not meet the definitions required for REVDEL or OS, and nothing to do with our friendly (I thought) exchange where I politely corrected your misunderstanding between "confirmed" and "autoconfirmed" DP 22:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your accusing me of bad behavior. What is friendly about that? -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Who has ever accused you of "bad behaviour"????? Step back from the brink, Padawan DP 23:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Jerm729, multiple people have told you that this is not a personal attack, is not revdel eligible, and is not oversightable. Your username is not "bashed", it does not impunge your credibility, and the only way it could have any relevance to your reputation on Wikipedia is through the Streisand effect. So now would be a good time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. (Also, please properly indent your comments - failure to do so makes the discussion hard to follow and can, if continually done, be considered disruptive. I've taken the liberty of indenting them here for you.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Long term vandal returned

Today, it was unintentionally brought to my attention that a long term vandal (see here) that I have been dealing with since I pretty much began editing this website came back in the past several days, and has already been blocked twice for making edits that I've noted are indicative of the long term abuser. Just in case Materialscientist doesn't see my messages, I would just like to make a formal request here to have the block on 69.159.39.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) extended beyond the 72 hour period it is currently at because he is very obviously the long term abuse editor that I've identified in past exchanges. His main goal was previously to post long screeds about how much he hates Haim Saban and the Power Rangers franchise (you can see him do that here and attempt to add my name to it) as well as completely whitewashing articles of content vaguely relating to Saban and his media franchise, usually restoring an old and deprecated form of the page that he was previously most comfortable with (example). An edit filter was previously created to prevent him from posting his screed, but he has since taken to adding false information to BLPs across the project, includingHollywood actors Meryl Streep and Michael Douglas, Philippine actors Dianne dela Fuente and Valerie Garcia, video game media GamePro and Fantasia (video game), and for some reason the Charlie's Angels disambiguation page.

In short, someone please increase the block on 69.159.39.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), prevent talk page access, and let's find someway to prevent him from vandalizing all of these new targets of his (because he is extremely predictable in what he edits anyway).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Tajik people

175.106.48.84 (talk · contribs), most likely identical with Nasirakram1440 (talk · contribs), is removing academic sources from the article Tajik people. Instead, he is posting unsourced POV, some of it factually wrong in all aspects. His explanation: i have done a lot of research on this and it is based on the ground reality [247]. Admin involvment is needed, perhaps by reverting his edits and semi-protecting the article. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is completely false. I am not removing anything, Instead i have add additional information for people to give them a better understanding of Tajiks rich culture. Unfortunately in Afghanistan some ethnic groups try to hide other ethnic groups accomplishments, history, culture and their origins to show a specific ethnic group dominant. I appeal to admins to pay an independent attention to this matter and protect the page. What i have posted is ground reality and i have done a lot of research about it. I have talked with Kabul University Professors and other academics who verify this. I again would like to appeal to who ever who has political or racial agendas and who are trying to suppress an ethnic groups accomplishments and ground realities to give up their mean agendas. I would like the Wikipedia Admins to do an independent research in this matter and decide for them selves. I am sure the fee world and free organisations like Wikipedia would take a just decision on this regard. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.106.48.84 (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources (WP:RS), your "on the ground reality" is considered original research (WP:OR) which is to be avoided. Every editor must support their claims with independent, secondary, published source not interviews one has conducted. It's the same whether the article was about an ethnic group, chemistry, a political candidate or a movie. No doubt Tajiks have a rich, historical culture, but you still need reliable sources. However, if any of those academics you spoke to have published on this subject, you could refer to their work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect sock puppetry there also. I have reverted some copyvio. The IP has also been adding to the hatnote a claim that Dari (Persian dialect) is "a language that came from King Darius (mentioned in the book of Daniel)." This of course is sheer nonsense, as not only do languages not come from a single person, it is extremely unlikely this person ever existed. Anyway, I've protected the article for a week to give time to sort out the possible sock puppets. Two new SPAs and the IP(s). Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should qualify this. It's been pointed out to me on my talk page that invented languages can be created by one person, although that Dari is pretty clearly not invented and is in any case post-biblical, and that there is speculation trying to identify Darius the Mede (which is correct but doesn't change the fact that he doesn't seem to have existed). We are still not going to state speculation and religious belief (and this is hardly mainstream anyway) as fact. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your reasons. I will gather as much written referencing resources as possible and then revert the page. Mean while i would like to mention that the famous tajik figures in history have been removed from the page and only a few are shown. What is the reason for this. Doesn't it show the vandalism against this article and tajik people. I hope you pay your sincerest attention to this matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirakram1440 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC) This message was originally posted in the section above, but presumably was intended for here so I have moved it. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Shinkazamaturi's long history of unproductive edits

Since late last year Shinkazamaturi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a habit of going around various professional wrestling related articles which involve wrestler Big Show and changing his name to "The Big Show". This goes against consensus and he has been warned a number of times by a number of users, including myself, HHH Pedrigree, and Richard BB. When confronted this user has called people selfish and told them that they shouldn't be editing or accused the admonishing user of threatening them and committing crimes. Beyond that, Shinkazamaturi adds generally misleading or totally inaccurate information to articles, such as this. When he was warned he ignored the warning and just reverted the other user. Here's another example of general nonsense added by the user:[248][249].LM2000 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree the user does not seem very open to discussion, going by their talkpage, but at least they don't seem inclined to edit war, which is a big plus point. Could you please give a link to where I can see the consensus that "Big Show" without "The" is the correct name? And, since you say Shinkazamaturi has gone around various articles changing it, could you also give diffs for a few examples at articles other than Big Show? (I can read the history of Big Show for myself, and see that the user moved it to the "The" version, among other things, but other examples of the same change are harder to find.) I see warnings about other matters on their page, too, but they're not that helpful to an outsider after the fact: a diff or two with regard to those warnings, especially more recent ones, would also be helpful, if you have them. Thank you. P.S. I can't take the user's accusations of selfishness etc as matters for sanctions or even warnings — more childish, to be frank. Have any of you tried the kind of soft answer that turneth away wrath? Bishonen | talk 20:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

The first time I encountered this user was actually in the middle of an edit war on Template:WWE personnel. As a general rule this particular template, we use the ring names that WWE bills them by, and as Richard BB tried to explain to Shinkazamaturi, WWE bills him as Big Show (notice the lack of "The"). The edits began in December[250][251][252][253] but continued into January[254] and February[255]. Shinkazamaturi's account was only two months old when the December edit war occurred, but after being adequately warned by February, he should've known better. Edits like these([256][257]) are from just a few days ago. HHH Pedrigree and I discussed what to do before bringing this here. He doesn't seem to respond well to template warnings or when we explicitly tell him what he's doing wrong.LM2000 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, he is edit warring, it's just an incredibly slow edit war. He is, even now, changing things that go against consensus. His edits range from the ignorant to the disruptive, and attempts to guide him otherwise are met with either silence or vitriol. This user is not here to further the project. — Richard BB 22:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, the link on Richard BB's page helps.[258] I've warned the user. But I'm assuming good faith — he doesn't look intentionally disruptive to me. Very young, perhaps. He could still end up blocked — I do understand lack of competence can be as frustrating as vandalism for you people who try to keep the articles in order. Bishonen | talk 09:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for your help. I suspected that English wasn't his first language, or that he was young, and given that his account is fairly new I wanted to make sure we could warn him adequately before seeking additional help. HHH Pedrigree suspected that if we keep letting him off the hook then nothing would ever change. Hopefully this is enough. Thanks again!LM2000 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Was the wrong way 'round. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 9 April 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. Jews and Communism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The article "Jews and Communism" is substantially plagiarized from an article, "Jewish Communism" on the anti-Semitic website Metapedia. The section "Hungary, Romania, and Poland" for example is almost an exact copy. Compare Jews and Communism#Hungary, Romania, and Poland with the same section in the Metapedia article.[link to be added] As well, four of the images are from the same picture (Sverdlov, Zinoviev, Yagoda and Kun). The order of nation sections is roughly the same. Metapedia puts country sections in the following order: Russia; Hungary, Romania and Poland; Germany and Austria; United States. Wikipedia uses the order Russia; Hungary, Romania and Poland; Weimar Republic; Austria; United States; United Kingdom. Many of the same quotes are used in both articles. I nominated this article for deletion but despite most editors voting for deletion it survived the AfD and a subsequent review. I do not know what procedure we should follow. Should we note the plagiarism in the article, remove plagiarized material, delete the article, sanction the editors responsible, or something else? Is this the correct noticeboard? TFD (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Good god are you desperate to get rid of an article you dislike. Check the dates mate: Metapedia copied from Wikipedia. You're free to complain there. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I should have done that. TFD (talk) 18:47, 9 April 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.

Help needed!

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.

---

Guess what, I just moved the city of Ramla from Jordan back to Israel! Take a look here: Talk:Ramla#What_the_heck.......

I searched for "pushpin_map=Israel center ta" on en.wp, and found 204 cases were it is used on Israeli places. Every single place I checked now seems magically to be transported to ......Jordan!!

The problem is, I do not know enough about the pushpin_map, or "Israel center ta" to fix it.. hope someone here can do better. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Admin eyes needed on two AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharkiv People's Republic

Edit in question: [259],

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk People's Republic

Edits in question: [260], [261],[262]

Editors seem to be engaged in WP:SOAPBOXING and in the process accusing other editors of being bias creating a hostile editing situation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Once again, our troubled article on The Zeitgeist Movement is under sustained pressure by supporters of the movement out to remove legitimately-sourced content from the article, and replace it with reams of uncritical puffery. It is also pretty well self-evident that either sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or both is going on. Since I'm about to blow my top once again over this issue, can I ask that (a) the article be semi-protected (I did this yesterday at WP:RFPP, but was turned down on the basis that this was a 'content dispute' - true in a literal sense, but clearly not the whole story), and (b) that experienced editors familiar with policy help ensure that we don't end up with a page drawn straight from the TZMs FAQ and the credulous blogs of its supporters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to semi-protect it for 6 months, but then decided I didn't need people claiming that an 'agent of the government' is somehow oppressing them. For some other admin, this is my suggestion.--v/r - TP 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh, PC1 seemed to be a good idea, infinitely DP 00:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - though my request for more eyes on the article and talk page still stands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think something more than PC1 is going to be needed here. I have just been looking at it today and there is clearly a small army of SPAs pushing an agenda on this article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I think an uninvolved administrator is needed. There is persistent edit-warring continuing, and the current protection isn't helping. Unfortunately I got myself involved by chiming in on the talk page so I'm not comfortable using admin tools there. But it is a horrid mess. Just read the article's talk page, and then look at the article's edit history. I worry that with this persistent level of involvement from organization members this will go to Arbcom like the Scientology mess did. -- Atama頭 22:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Political censorship

Please review [263] and [264] which I believe are blatant attempts to squelch discussion of accurate article improvements because of political implications. EllenCT (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the underlying dispute, but I agree that Cadiomals has no business deleting your talk page comments. Reyk _YO! 06:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No business eh? I suggest you read WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM thoroughly and tell me what part of her post mentioned improvements to the article and that it isn't an attempt at general "forum" discussion. That is justification for removing the post altogether. That is all I have to comment on this non-issue. She has done this on the Talk page before ([as well as bringing a dispute here before, in which she was swiftly rebuked) and shown her total lack of understanding of many Wiki policies. It won't be tolerated as we desire a Talk page with continuous discussion on improving the article itself as per the guidelines, and not a place for her petty political discussion/debate. It can also be noted that I am a respectful and cooperative editor who has not removed most of her posts and only done this twice when it was clearly a violation. Any and all qualified Wikipedia administrators will back me up on this. You do not appear to be an admin. Cadiomals (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The linked discussion says, "the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like [an] attempt" but Cadiomals has defended VictorD7's unsupported assertions that US taxes are progressive. EllenCT (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of EllenCT's disruptive editing. This isn't the proper forum for a content dispute, much less one where she makes false claims. Every source presented supports the fact that US taxation is progressive, including her own source of choice. Her own comment here starts by conceding that they're at least somewhat progressive (rather than regressive, like European taxation), before closing by implying the opposite. VictorD7 (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources which support the assertion that US tax incidence is anything other than regressive at the high income brackets that User:VictorD7 so incessantly attempts to portray otherwise, and he knows it. This repeated insertion of paid advocacy must end. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Loads of sources refuting everything you've said (including your own few sources, which you didn't understand) have been presented and several are being used, but this isn't the place for a drawn out off topic content discussion. I've never been the type to run to admin and tell, but if you falsely accuse me one more time of being paid to edit I'll look into the rules on that, because I'm confident that leveling such baseless charges is a rule violation that can result in sanctions. VictorD7 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've restored the edit. Blanking sections per WP:FORUM can be appropriate for, say, new users who have stumbled into WP:FRINGE articles and want to share their views on creationism (and even there, a gentle nudge is often more helpful and less pointy). Blanking a discussion between experienced editors on what appears to be a topic relevant to the article.... probably a bad idea. Edit warring over it is definitely a bad idea. And at this point, I'll let the admins take over. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the same as my reply to you on my Talk page but I will copy-paste it here for others to see. @Lesser Cartographies: I'm sorry but you are wrong in this situation. The links in that post are not found within the article at all, they are simply links Ellen used to facilitate more of her POV pushing, and she has a history of wasting people's time with off-topic/casual political discussion or simply whining about other editors on an article Talk page (not necessarily me). Please read my post on the board also. I have only done this twice so far when I saw it as a blatant violation and have respected/tolerated her the rest of the time. As a third party who just randomly arrived at this not only do you not have all the info but it seems you didn't even glance more than once at her post and tried to see if it was directly pertaining to article improvement. Based on WP:NOTFORUM I feel I am justified in my actions in trying to keep the Talk page a productive environment. The last time she tried doing this she was rebuked by several people. I would also like to add that your interpretation of WP:NOTFORUM may not be everyone's interpretation, as the guideline is not just used against new editors and can/has been used to discourage unproductive or off-topic discussion or argument on contentious articles. I will leave your revert until an admin resolves this non-issue but if you had actual context you would know it was a mistake. Cadiomals (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Except her post didn't mention the article or contain a proposal for improvements, her links were to a political talking point that has nothing to do with the article, and her section title didn't even accurately describe it. That's on top of her well documented history of disruptive editing on multiple articles and talk pages (including that one). Context matters. VictorD7 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7: isn't it true that you've repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation claiming that US taxes are progressive, because they assume that corporate income taxes are not passed on to customers? EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, and doesn't it violate a rule for you to level such a preposterous and false personal accusation? Not only am I not paid by PGPF, but they aren't used as a source for any "statements"; just a graph they created based on Tax Policy Center data, which you know full well. It was more convenient than drawing one from scratch. As for your description of taxes, multiple editors have patiently spent paragraphs and hours of their lives explaining the basics to you, including what your own sources say, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. VictorD7 (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context of her other editing that is disruptive/forum-like (I don't know whether it is or not, you'd have to produce diffs). On the face of it her post is ambiguous as to whether WP:FORUM applies. It literally doesn't suggest a change to the article, but normally, AGF, one would assume it's implicit what the impact for the article would be. I don't know enough about the topic/talk page background whether that's so here. So, I think those that want the reverts to stand need to post diffs of the context. DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say a good rule of thumb is: don't. It pisses people off. It does nothing to reduce conflict. It increases edit warring. We are not trying to build some idealized society. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, and an off topic comment or two is much more sustainable with that than conflict over said comments' removal.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt is correct. Trying to enforce FORUM on a user's talk page is almost always a bad idea. To enforce it strictly here would mean we have to enforce it strictly on everyone's page, which is a nightmare. We give tremendous latitude on how a user uses their talk page. I've been known to talk about what I did this weekend, or my opinion of something else that I"m not directly editing. A degree of socialization is tolerated and can actually be helpful. If you think something needs deleting on a user talk page because it is "borderline" (not vandalism or a personal attack, which is obvious, but FORUM or similar), ask an admin or uninvolved experienced editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This happened at Talk:United States, not somebody's user talk page.--Atlan (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I misread the one comment then. Still, FORUM is not a policy that is strictly policed for good cause. Doing so causes more drama than tolerating a little side discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• The diffs shown do not show an appropriate enforcement of WP:FORUM. Regardless of Dennis's very good point that we DO in fact give people latitude as regards posts, these comments were not in any way forum posts. DeCausa points out the level of literal thinking (and in my view rules lawyering) needed to consider these posts in that way.
  As regards enforcing WP:FORUM a warning within the thread should be given FIRST to note that it is straying off topic. If after that warning the forum posting continues then it could be appropriate to "hat" or "collapse" a discussion. But at this point in wikipedia culture, deletion is rarely acceptable for good faith posts anywhere (except on one's own talk page and even then it can be considered rude). Only clearly and unambiguously disruptive posts should be deleted and there again only when they have not been replied to (except in the most extreme cases).
  It might be an idea to template:trout Cadiomals but unless there is clear evidence of a pattern here the allegation of political censorship is just about as unhelpful as Cadiomals's deletion of the comments. I'd suggest both users should take a step back and try to extend an olive branch to the other party--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cailil: In hindsight I could have just ignored her and let her posts blow over as they always do, since I'm not worried about her pushing her POV into the actual article anymore. But she has a history of sidetracking people's attention with political debate that doesn't directly pertain to making changes to the article, and I wanted to prevent it before it started. To me her most recent post with the links was another attempt at this since I doubt she actually expected it to be added to the article (and never mentions doing so). Funny thing is, if she had only mentioned adding it to the article, I would never have removed it since it would have complied with WP:TALK. But it was just the links, so I interpreted that as attempting forum discussion. In the past she made a more obvious violation by whining about other editors (not just me) on an article Talk page. I removed her post, she complained here and the admins backed me up, so that probably encouraged me to do it a second time. For the future I will just have to tolerate her little side discussions as long as it won't affect the actual article's content. Cadiomals (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Better approach to something like Talk:United_States#Health_by_political_preference is to simply and succinctly ask "What changes to the article are you suggesting?" NE Ent 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reagardless United States is not a good place to be discussing the advantages or disadvantages of each political party and I'd suggest that anyone doing so is indeed pushing a POV worth ANI's investigation.--v/r - TP 17:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that concerned administrators contact the editorial board of Social Science and Medicine to ask their opinion of whether encyclopedia editors have any reason to disagree with the publication in question. EllenCT (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not what your putting in, EllenCT, it's where you are putting it. The article, United States, covers political parties in general from a overview. It does not cover what they believe other than calling one center-left and center-right. If you are using that article to bash a political party, that's POV pushing in an inappropriate place. We are not going to fill every nook and cranny of Wikipedia with political bashing.--v/r - TP 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Politics of the United States is also an appropriate location for this, but I strongly disagree with and object to the implication that there is no variation in health by political preference. While conduct and behavior restrictions requiring political neutrality may exist in the military (and I will instruct my congressional delegation to zero their enforcement funding at once, if they exist) such restrictions are opposed to WP:V. EllenCT (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

More evidence that you're incapable of neutral editing. But first, your bringing up my job and my opinion is a veiled doxing threat, please don't do it again. Regarding the rest, I haven't at all argued whether there is "variation in health by political preference". This isn't even about that. If you were capable of putting your POV behind you, you could see that. This is about where on Wikipedia you are pushing that and whether it is an appropriate location. United States is not an appropriate location.--v/r - TP 00:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Are members of the US military required to be politically neutral on questions of such political import pertaining to US political parties? Why do you imply that I have been holding my personal opinions over the conclusions of the peer reviewed literature reviews? Why should a summary report about United States demographics and health considering one of the most important questions, the effect of political preference on health, not be in the United States article? EllenCT (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as you are concerned, I'm an editor on this site and not representing the military. And for your information, no we are not required to stay politically neutral. We can't attend political rallies in uniform but out of uniform, like the disclaimer on my talk page clearly demonstrates my editing to be, we can have an opinion, vote, and participate in elections just like every other citizen. Do not continue to try to link my real life job with my edits or I'll be seeking a block for you for a doxing threat. Why should United States not include the content you are trying to add? Because it's outside the scope of that article. That article is a general overview of many different issues in the United States. Painting black eyes on political parties is outside of that scope and better suited in articles about those parties or about health in the United States. If we included every scrap bit of information about the United States in that article, we'd be smashing nearly 40% of the entirety of Wikipedia in one single article. It's outside of the scope.--v/r - TP 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You list your military affiliation and rank, and display your uniform insignia, on your user page above your Wikipedia role descriptions and all your other userboxes -- and you claim you are not representing the military here. Then you threaten to block me for doxing when referring to that information which you put on your userpage. Can you see why that might not seem entirely consistent to an outside observer? What other demographic factors affecting the health of a country do you believe should be excluded from articles about those countries? Just the ones that show a difference between political preference outcomes, or is there a wider principle about scope that you are applying here? EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it not on your userpage that you like horses? You are a student of economics? People explain who they are on their talk page. However, your language suggests you intend to contact my employement, my boss, and tell him that I'm representing a political position from a military perspective. First off, my boss already knows I edit Wikipedia, I've had to get clearance to travel abroad of Wikimania Berlin and some of the other wiki-related activities I've participated in. Second off, the disclaimer on my user page is a directive from Air Force social media guidelines which requires that we make it clear that we are not representing the military on here. I don't edit on behalf of the military or represent it while I am here. It is listed on my user page because it is who I am and I'm proud of it. That doesn't mean it can be used to threaten me. And whether or not my superiors are aware of my editing, making implied threats that you believe I am not acting in accordance to regulations with the implied threat of contacting them over it is a doxxing threat. You continue doing that and you'll see how quick you'll be banned. The only thing that should be covered in the health section of the United States article is general information about our healthcare system, major problems like obesity, and how we compare to other countries on a national level. That's what that article deals with, national-wide issues. When you start breaking it down to state-by-state or party-by-party, you've gone outside the scope. On top of all of that, your continuance to not get it is really bordering on WP:TE. I'll probably be the first to call for a topic ban for you next time you're at ANI. And if I am not first, I'll sure as hell support such a motion. You just refuse to see past your own POV. Everyone here is tired of arguing with you. Straighten up, quit pushing your POV, or get the hell out.--v/r - TP 02:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think I would complain to your boss? I said I didn't want Congress to allow spending money to enforce the conduct restrictions to which you refer. That means I want you to be able to express beliefs consistent with the peer reviewed corroborated findings that there are different health outcomes from different political preferences. The determination is apparently greater than obesity is as a risk factor, so that isn't going to cut it for your approved scope restrictions. Why do you think the founders chose federated states over a single national legislature? All of them are on record as wanting the benefit of the natural experiments of trying different laws in different states and publishing the outcomes. What do you think Thomas Paine would say if he knew you were threatening people for trying to publish those outcomes? EllenCT (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well first off, we don't 'publish' things. But that's a technicality. I never said you couldn't 'publish' it. I said you had to do it in an appropriate location. Health care in the United States#Political issues, Democratic Party (United_States)#Health care reform, Health care reform in the United States, History of health care reform in the United States, Health care politics, Health insurance in the United States. There are a half dozen articles right there that would be WAY more appropriate for the material you are trying to add than United States.--v/r - TP 04:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to chuckle at this. The support for this is politically motivated mapping and your strong beliefs, arguably correlation without causation. As an example, there are people out there that argue bras cause breast cancer. But because someone makes the case, does not make it so. Since you're often keen on primary source material, I'd suggest you see what the scientific literature says about this.Mattnad (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The last time you tried to imply that causation wasn't confirmed in the secondary peer reviewed sources, you let me prove I could find in a matter of hours what you said you hadn't been able to find in years. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah... coming back to your old saw, and I quote, that "government spending on tuition subsidies pays for itself many times over." You never did provide a source that even came close to stating that.Mattnad (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Every single one of those sources proves it's true, unless you assume that the income tax tables aren't WP:CK. Here's a story published just today that illustrates it quite clearly. What are the reasons you have to doubt it? EllenCT (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not going to debate you on this here (not the place), but your all your source says is that often, but not always, a degree has a positive ROI for the individual. It does not however say that government tuition subsidies have a positive ROI as a whole. If you want to bring it up again, there are those discussion thread on Government spending and Progressive tax where the editors took you to task on your past efforts. Mattnad (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You clearly are debating, inasmuch as making stuff up because you want it to be true and then pretending it is actually true could be considered a debate strategy. Summaries discuss aggregate general truths, not specific details, and writing an encyclopedia involves summarizing. Nobody has ever produced a whit of evidence that the statement is not supported by the sources, including you and all your buddies who continually "take me to task" because you don't like the fact that I look things up in the library instead of the collected works of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. EllenCT (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Mattnad brought it up, I would like administrators to please review Talk:Progressive tax/Archive 3#Additional sources, where he and User:Morphh show that they lack understanding of what is and is not a WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed literature review, even when it has "Review" in the journal name. EllenCT (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This page isn't supposed to be some sort of wandering fishing expedition. If you want to start another ANI topic section about different editors and other pages go ahead. Personally, I feel that Morphh has shown a pretty good understanding of Wikipedia and WP:PRIMARY & WP:SECONDARY and that so far you have shown real difficulties with both those and WP:SYNTH. I'd suggest staying on topic here. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend a topic ban preventing User:Cadiomals, User:VictorD7, User:Mattnad, User:Morphh, and User:Capitalismojo from editing articles on economics, politics, demography, or geographic political divisions until such time as they can show that they have an understanding of the Wikipedia rules which they show they do not understand above. EllenCT (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Me thinks you doth protest too loudly, EllenCT. Looking briefly at your contribs,you seem to not understand what improper synthesis of sources means, and based on what you are trying to introduce, it seems you definitely have a POV to push. Just because something is sourced, that doesn't mean it is appropriate to include. Otherwise, we would have to include every crackpot theory that any decent newspaper mentions in every science and politics article. That is NOT what an encyclopedia does, and we aren't here to be a platform for any political philosophy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To which of my statements pertaining to synthesis do you refer? If the reliable sources support 1+1=2, but there are factions paying for inclusion of 1+1=3 and 1+1=4, that doesn't mean 1+1=3 is right and should be included, it means 1+1=2 should be included and the controversy should be described in terms of who is paying to deny the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• They alert you when your name is mentioned: I just have to say, it's both funny and sad that she is actually serious about wanting sanctions against those people who keep her heavy bias in check and thinks she'll be taken seriously when her contribution history is out there for everyone to see that she is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It is so incredible that there are so many fascist nazi Hitlers on here keeping poor little Ellen from spreading the Truth! "Until such time as they can show that they have an understanding of the Wikipedia rules"–sigh...the irony. Cadiomals (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Would love to see noticeboard actually review this and see the boomerang. This arbitration contains several editors repeating the same issues with regard to her WP:TE editing. Morphh ^(talk) 01:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

[Own comment on the above proposal removed] Iselilja (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that is a personal attack, do you not? Perhaps you should find a better way of communicating. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I do find it very weird that an administrator find that it is my behaviour that is the problem here. Iselilja (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone else's misbehavior doesn't excuse making a personal attack on anyone, it is that simple. It was unnecessary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. Iselilja (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's a personal attack to call someone a randroid, why is it POV pushing to point out that the reliable sources don't support Rand's followers' tenets? EllenCT (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't even consider "bible-thumper" to be an insult isn't lost on me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

An incivility ban on Cadiomals would cetainly get my vote. Is there such a thing? When I first read this by Cadiomals, I lauged out loud: "It can also be noted that I am a respectful and cooperative editor" Characterizing someone as "petty" and "whining" is neither respectful nor cooperative, nor is condescension. Neither is sarcasm like this: "It is so incredible that there are so many fascist nazi Hitlers on here keeping poor little Ellen from spreading the Truth! " Howunusual (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

82.164.96.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All of IPs contributions are spamming Mass killings under Communist regimes to the See Also sections on dozens of pages. Some might be considered germane but many are not. Editor has been repeatedly warned and has not responded, in fact repeating the spam after my reversions. I had half a mind to report this at ARV but I'm not 100% sure there's the editor intent to make a vandalism charge. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've actually just reported the IP at WP:RVAN as I'm trailing them reverting your reverts, Chris. I'm seeing more notifications for pages on my watchlist as I type. I've also been scratching my head over whether the 'see also' section additions are germane or not, but am finding that the pattern is mainly contingent on whether Russia (and Nazis?) is in the title or content. The majority of the additions are so tenuous that they're embarrassing. I'm leaving those working on the Holocaust denial article to make up their own minds. The only realistic solution seems to be to at least have them blocked for a period of time in order to sort things out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Holocaust denial; it was very easy to make up my mind on this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite right, Anomalocaris. As soon as I'd read what I'd said about 'embarrassing', it occurred to me that the addition was downright offensive and denigrating. Cheers on that catch! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial was my point of entry to this morass. I'm a reviewer; I was on Special:PendingChanges; I saw Holocaust denial, which I've reviewed before, so I opened it and saw the change and quickly determined to revert. Then, as I usually do after a reversion, I went to the contribs link to see what else this user had done, and then I went to the talk page and discovered the link to this discussion, and since then I've reverted Language death, Stalinist architecture, Putinism, Infanticide, Russian nationalism. Thank you all who are working to get rid of this "See also" link of no relevance to so many articles! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Among the articles are Timeline of Russian innovation, Russian culture, List of cultural icons of Russia. This is just disruptive and the IP should be blocked. TFD (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've caught some of those, TFD, but am still trudging through the rest. Hopefully, someone will respond to my report ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• While the relevance of placing the link on some of the articles may be debatable, on some of them it is clearly irrelevant, the most ridiculous example I have seen being Language death. It is also clear that the editing is being done from extreme political motives, as is shown by the fact that a few of the editor's edits are concerned not with calling attention to "Mass killings under Communist regimes", but with suppressing information about nazi war crimes: [265] [266]. I have blocked the IP address for 48 hours, but since the first edit by this editor dates from just over a month ago, that may not be enough. If the problem returns, please feel welcome to contact me, and I will consider whether to impose a longer block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you James. May I add that the utter lack of edit summaries and explanations is a clear enough indication of what kind of editor we're dealing with. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, the lack of edit summaries doesn't mean much; a lot of editors don't bother with edit summaries, even for useful edits. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)