Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive837

Request topic ban for chronic POV pushing editor on Electronic cigarette

User in question is user:FergusM1970. User has been repeatedly editing this article towards a Pro - ecig view. I do not believe they are capable of editing the article neutrally because they have strong opinions about the topic and seem to have chronically failed to get the point about sourcing guidelines for medical content, NPOV, OR, edit warring, etc. Every single one of the edits have been in favor of e-cigs, or original research alteration/deletion of content was against e-cigs. I do not believe they are here to write an encyclopedia but rather twist the article into their own designs. Lesion 18:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please point to an example of OR or an unsourced edit that I have made to that article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say unsourced content. The sources you are using are not MEDRS. I have already pointed out on the talk page where the OR from today was. Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll also point out that there are numerous examples of POV in the article that you don't seem to be complaining about. For example an interview with the head of the CDC can apparently be cited, but an article published in the journal of the Royal College of Physicians apparently isn't an RS. A statement by the WHO that the efficacy of e-cigs for smoking cessation has not been demonstrated is more prominent than a study showing that they're AT LEAST as effective as the nicotine patches the WHO say we should use instead. Claims that e-cigs could lead to tobacco use are highlighted despite all the evidence, including the CDC's own research, showing exactly the opposite. Stuffing an article with hysterical scaremongering is not NPOV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As already raised months ago on the talk page, Sources like the CDC and WHO are not wrong simply because you disagree with them. You cannot take primary sources and other unreliable sources and oppose such sources. This was clearly pointed out to you by several editors on the talk page at the time. Lesion 19:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As is clearly stated in WP:MEDRS a position statement from the CDC or WHO claiming, for example, that e-cigs are a gateway to smoking is less authoritative than actual medical evidence showing that they're not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use a chain of primary sources and unreliable sources to overrule mainstream sources like WHO and CDC. Lesion 19:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That would only be an issue if either CDC or WHO had released a secondary source showing that e-cigs are leading to a reduced rate of smoking cessation. They haven't, so what's your problem?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This appears to be a routine content dispute between two editors, and the 'POV pushing' as OP called has a relevant talk page discussion (which hasn't been utilized it appears). There hasn't been any personal attacks as of yet, only a single editor disagreeing with another single editor. I'm not seeing the original research, as the claims are cited with a reliable source. Also, OP see WP:BOOMERANG OP, you've been editwarring as well. Tutelary (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring. First please look up what edit warring is defined as, and then please redact that statement. Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I will not. See the WP:3RR. You are not automatically entitled to three reverts, it's only at the third that you get a temp block. You can edit war with only two. Tutelary (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not edit warring to revert a controversial change. I was not the only editor to revert said change either. You do not understand the term. Lesion 20:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And I was not the only editor to restore it. The other editor who reverted it did so for an invalid reason, i.e. the file format of the source.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Admins, please review the version history of the article. User is only making one-sided edits to this article, using unreliable sources. Against consensus, check how many editors oppose this behavior in the history of the talk page. Regards, Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy. Two editors oppose my edits on the talk page; one supports them. That makes two and two, so I'm hardly editing against consensus. You, on the other hand, don't seem to like talk page discussions much. You don't even have a talk page. Now, please explain why Smoking in England - an NHS-funded tobacco control group - is an "unreliable source" when the subject is, erm, smoking in England.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The history of the talk page. There is clear consensus against your editing. Lesion 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There is clear consensus against some of my edits, which are no longer in the article. That doesn't mean there's a consensus against all my edits. The history shows that I'm quite happy to seek a consensus and have been involved in building several; I don't just revert things with misleading (or absent) edit summaries and avoid talk page discussions. The edit that seems to have sparked you off is in the section entitled "Smoking cessation" and it's sourced from a review into smoking cessation carried out by a government-funded smoking cessation group. To call that OR or POV is simply wrong. Nor is it being used to debunk a secondary source, which would be against WP:MEDRS, because there aren't any secondary sources that contradict it. Frankly I don't see what your problem with it is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You have not made a single neutral edit to the article in months of history. The only reason you have got away with it is because you are aggressive at edit warring when editors revert your POV edits, shouting down anyone who disagrees with you. Your arguments are circular and most editors have simply lost interest. You do not get to dictate to others that an article should be twisted away from the mainstream view simply because you shout louder than everyone else. Lesion 20:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think citing any paper that doesn't say e-cigs kill babies is a POV edit. In fact there are no actual research papers showing that e-cigs damage health, cause addiction or lead to smoking, and plenty that contradict those claims. So what's the mainstream view? Position statements and FAQs do not, as made very clear by WP:MEDRS, negate actual evidence. You seem to be arguing that just because a FAQ (it is not a secondary source) released by the WHO say e-cigs haven't been proven to help smoking cessation, its POV to mention any of the quite extensive research showing that they do. That isn't what NPOV means. Anyway, I did link a study claiming that e-cigs make smokers less likely to quit. Someone deleted it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Tutelary. FergusM1970 does not seem to have engaged in abusive editing deserving a ban. The case has not been made. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread was closed without any comment from the administrator community by User:NE Ent with the summary "This isn't an issue for this board. Concerns about whether a particular source is valid belong at WP:RSN. If ya'll can't come to consensus formal content assistance may be requested at WP:DRN, alternatively you can ask for comments from the broader the community at WP:RFC. Continuing to edit war and going back and forth on the talk page is not productive." NE Ent seems to have misunderstood the situation. The complaint was about tendentious editing and possible sock puppetry. A serious complaint, brought by one of our best, most productive, and most credible medical editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If an editor feels I misjudged the situation based on the content of the discussion then reverting the closure is entirely appropriate. NE Ent 14:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Has consistently used primary sources and attempted to remove the position of major international organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Those who continually claim that the World Health Organization is not a reliable source should not be editing. [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The link provided does not supports the assertion. Following that link shows that they don't feel a source [2] which includes the disclaimers The safety of ENDS has not been scientifically demonstrated. The potential risks they pose for the health of users remain undetermined. may not a good basis on which to base a Wikipedia article. NE Ent 17:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per go look at the talk page. Talk:Electronic_cigarette#PPT NE Ent 15:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)gus h
• Support topic ban per Lesion. Fergus has a history of misuse of sources, mischaracterization of source, original research where he believes his arguments trump those of the reliable sources, and an inability or unwillingness to accept Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. He's already been blocked for edit-warring by Mark Arsten, was subsequently warned again for edit-warring by EdJohnston, and then was most recently blocked for a week by NuclearWarfare for tendentious editing. After the block was over he went right back to the article to continue the same tendentious editing. That's enough. Zad68 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up about this thread Zad. I support the topic ban, but I am also blocking for a month. Literally nothing has gotten better since I instituted a block at the beginning of the month. NW (Talk) 00:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible tag team on Electronic cigarette

Moved from bottom of page NE Ent 14:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Yesterday I added a mention of a study on smoking prevalence to the Electronic cigarette article. It has now been removed by three different editors, User:Jmh649, User:Lesion and User:CFCF, after being restored by another editor and myself. None of the three who removed it gave a satisfactory explanation for doing so. I can't say that this is definitely an attempt to game 3RR and keep the information out of the article, but it certainly could be. Reasons given for removing the edit are "It's a PowerPoint presentation" (which I believe is irrelevant) and "It's unreliable" (which, as the source is the UK DoH and Cancer Research UK, among others, seems dubious).--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You came here over [3] showing that you did not want to use "smoking" with regard to electronic "cigarettes"? And [4] which shows you seeking to add material that they may actually reduce use of cigarettes? Looks like a routine content issue and one for which an RfC is far better than a drama board incident report, alas. Start an RfC which you quite likely would prevail on, rather than coming here. Or try WP:DRN. If I had the power, I likely would shut this board down as having exceeded any reasonable drama to usefulness ratio. Collect (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you were using a primary source published in the form of a ppt as per [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's already been pointed out to Jmh649 at Talk:Electronic_cigarette#PPT by another editor (e.g. Kim D. Petersen) that a.) the PowerPoint format is an irrelevant red-herring, and b.) the linked article is clearly a secondary source. Whether its a reliable secondary source is, of course, subject to consensus discussion on the article talk page. NE Ent 15:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent it might do well to review what is and isn't a secondary source with respect to medicine. I have provided a link on the talk page you mention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please tell us where WP:MEDRS rules this out as a secondary source? This source does not match the primary source definition in WP:MEDRS and does match the secondary source definition in the same, and as far as i can see, it refers us to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources for further material, and here secondary sources are defined as (paraphrased): built from primary sources (here several statistics and surveys), significantly seperated (the statistics/surveys are not collected by the authors), provides analysis/interpretation/commentary on primary sources (that is what the text we quote does).

I think you make the mistake of thinking that this section in WP:MEDRS only accepts peer-reviewed (marked as)"review" articles as being secondary sources. While this interpretation can be made by consensus in specific areas, it is not one that is supported by the generic primary/secondary/tertiary source definition. --Kim D. Petersen 16:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In general, secondary sources are self-described as review articles or meta-analysis.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That is very nice, and this is indeed self-described as such[7] (summary and analysis of statistical material and surveys relevant to the topic area). --Kim D. Petersen 17:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor removing entire, well-sourced section from article Christopher Monckton without adequate justification

Editor User:Viriditas has claimed that a section on Christopher Monckton's political view pertaining to climate change are "promotional", Undue, Coattrack, etc - whatever seems to spring to mind. The section is very well sourced, and the majority of it is quite certainly the opposite of promotional. Monckton - within the limited realm of his influence - is fairly well known for his views on climate science. The article is a BLP, and the material discusses Monckton and his views. Editor Viriditas is simply removing the entire section by fiat. The only discussion that has taken place - over a matter of hours - has been with me. No opportunity for other editors to participate has been provided. I've reverted his blanket removal twice, but he/she persists. This is not acceptable - Editor Viriditas has not provided *specific* examples to back up his claims - only blanket statements that - because Monckton is not an expert on climate science, the material should not be in the article - ignoring that the article isn't claiming that he's an expert, it is presenting information relevant to Monckton. A casual scan of the net clearly shows that Monckton is controversial, and fairly widely known for being contrarian on climate change. Anastrophe (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The user keeps adding an unbelievable and unprecedented 769 words about Monckton's fringe climate change denial views into his biography.[8] I've said on the talk page that this enormous weight is undue and is tantamount to coatrackery and promotion. I then brought the 769 words down to a manageable 163.[9] Instead of receiving thanks and admiration for helping to improve Wikipedia, I've been dragged here instead. Anastrophe has been asked several times why he thinks this material is important but he refuses to answer. When he's told that he has the burden to justify adding this material, he responds with "I didn't write it", but that doesn't stop him from adding it back in again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"The user keeps adding an unbelievable and unprecedented 769 words". False on so many levels. First, the material has been in the article for quite some time, I don't know exactly how long, but at least a year or more. I didn't add any of this material to the article. Instead, editor Viriditas is removing this material by fiat - with vague claims of policy violations, but without a single specific. Furthermore, a claim that 769 words is "unprecedented" requires proof - otherwise, it's just noises made to sound important. Monckton's views on climate science are relevant and notable to Christopher Monckton - the article is not about climate science, it is about Monckton, but editor Viriditas insists that this material about Monckton cannot be included in an article about Monckton. "Anastrophe has been asked several times why he thinks this material is important but he refuses to answer.". Another complete, total falsehood. Editor Viriditas has not asked a single question in the discussion thus far. I have not 'refused' to answer anything - I have explained why I believe that editor Viriditas has not appropriately provided a valid justification for removal of this material. Generic, vague claims of policy violations are certainly any editor's prerogative - removing well-sourced material by fiat based on those generic claims is not acceptable in a collaborative medium. The tone of editor Viriditas's commentary is disturbing - I've explained my rationale, he's explained his, but no other editors have had an opportunity to discuss the matter. I am accused of 'refusing' to answer questions that have never been tendered. The burden is upon editor Viriditas to provide specifics, not generalities, as justifications for removing well-sourced material that is pertinent to this BLP. I'll thank and extend my admiration to editor Viriditas when he/she collaborates on the article, rather than removing material by fiat. Anastrophe (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

First, the length of time anything has been in an article is not a valid argument for keeping it in the article. I often remove vandalism that's been in place for years. According to your argument, we shouldn't remove it because it's been there for a long time. Do you see a problem with your reasoning? Second, I've explained on the talk page why I removed it, but you refuse to explain why you've added it back in. Instead, you keep refusing to take responsibility. The way Wikipedia works is like this: 1) an editor (in this case myself) finds a problem. There is no time limit on the problem, it may be new or old. 2) The editor uses the talk page to explain the problem, citing policies or guidelines if necessary. 3) The editor attempts to leave the problem for others to handle based on their talk page message, or tries to fix the problem themselves. 4) Other editors may come along to agree or disagree, or there will be silence. So what happened? I left a message on the talk page explaining the problem and then I fixed the problem. You showed up and reverted saying "why did you remove the material"? Well, that's been explained to you many times now, but you keep on adding the material back in while avoiding the burden of proof. If you can't defend adding the material back in, then stop adding it. It doesn't matter how long the problem occurred or how long the content was in the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of dissembling claims here is astonishing. NO, my argument is not that it shouldn't be removed because it's been there a long time - I have not said that, you have said it, putting words in my mouth in order to attack me for them. Yes, you explained on the talk page your rationale. However, it is utter crap to suggest that I 'refuse' to explain anything - I've provided (perhaps overly voluminously) my rationale for inclusion, but editor Viriditas keeps saying that I'm refusing to explain myself. Utter crap. "refusing to take responsibility". Again, crap. I've stated my rationale for the material to remain, very clearly. I understand how wikipedia works, the dripping condescension is not necessary; while I have not been here quite as long as you, I have been here a very long time, I have plenty of edits under my belt, and I know an effort to scrub material because another editor doesn't like it, when I see it.

You've warped the record again - you stated your rationale for removal, I replied why I felt your rationale was not adequate - then you removed the material by fiat, ignoring the barely started discussion, and not providing any opportunity for other editors to participate. Not even six hours had passed before you removed the material, even though an objection (clearly detailed) had been provided. I did not "show up and revert", nor did i ever ask "why did you remove the material?" - I provided a direct rebuttal to your claims, then you removed the material by fiat anyway. How is such prevarication even tolerable, for chrissakes? I ask admin to review the discussion, and the timing of the discussion against Viriditas's hasty removal of the material before more than just a single editor had had an opportunity to participate. The material in question pertains specifically and directly to Monckton, the subject of the BLP. It does not violate BLP policies, nor is it given undue weight in consideration of Monckton's (minor) notoriety as a climate change skeptic/denialist/contrarian. Anastrophe (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You must be looking into a mirror, because the "dissembling claims" appear to be emanating from your own keyboard. To recap, you've said that you don't have to justify your actions or explain why you've added the material back into the article because you didn't add it. You obviously meant to say that you didn't write it, because you've now added it into the article twice. When asked to explain yourself again, you say "it's been there all along". When it is explained to you that "I didn't write it" and "it's been there for a long time" are not adequate nor sufficient arguments to justify your reverts and additions, you respond with "you're putting words in my mouth". Again, wash, rinse, repeat. You have the burden to explain why you keep adding the material. I've already explained why I removed it. Responding with "I didn't write it" and "It's been there a long time" are arguments to avoid. Those who add material have to explain why, regardless of who wrote it originally and irrespective of how long its been in the article. Your responses show a pattern of moving the goalposts, avoiding the burden, and deflecting solving the problem. You've been asked repeatedly why you added the material back into the article. You'll need to use the talk page to explain your rationale. I do not have to explain your reasoning, you do. I hope that's clear. And please, stop appealing to editors-from-the-future who haven't yet commented or edited but will be coming to the talk page real soon now. Either defend your additions or if you can't, stop adding them. It's really that simple. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"And please, stop appealing to editors-from-the-future who haven't yet commented or edited but will be coming to the talk page real soon now." Please show some respect for the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, rather than dismissing their existence, and their contributions, and forging ahead as if this is your encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have defended my rationale clearly and in detail on the talk page. The record is available on the talk page, where other editors will see that not a single one of your claims above is true - it's merely a wall of 'you said this' where I said nothing of the sort. I'm reminded of a character on the show 'The Good Wife' - a politician who had the most infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity. Have a good life, Viriditas, I'll let the record speak for itself, and trust that other editors will see right through these ploys. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- the section about Monckton's climate science denial does seem to me to be too long. Reyk _YO! 05:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. 'Too long' rather depends on the relevance to the subject of the BLP, wouldn't you say? Monckton is decidedly not well-known. However, he is known, and he is notable in one regard for his positions on climate change. His notoriety in that regard has been recent, and controversial. The claim that has been made is that the section is "promotional" (it is patently not, a significant proportion is damning). Another claim is that it gives undue weight to a fringe theory - the problem is, it's not giving article space to a fringe theory, it is describing a number of incidents/conflicts that the subject of the article has been involved in, pursuant to the subject's notoriety for his controversial views on that very subject. The material makes no claim at all that Monckton is an expert on the subject, nor that he is influential, nor that his views are correct - if it did, then the material would most certainly be inappropriate. I agree that the section could use some appropriate editing and cleanup. I disagree that the majority of it - all of which is cited to reliable sources - should just be excised by fiat, and I emphatically disagree that the material violates the policies that editor Viriditas claims - and my detailed rebuttals are on the article talk page if anyone chooses to review the record. Anastrophe (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the section being disagreed about is very long — 30 lines on my good big screen. That certainly looks like undue weight. The proof of the pudding as to how people have behaved is on the talkpage, especially since Anastrophe has claimed that "No opportunity for other editors to participate has been provided". That seems to be wrong, as Viriditas opened a section on talk even before he removed the material. (Per the BRD principle, he could have first removed it, and then discussed when he was reverted, so the indignation about removal "by fiat" isn't appropriate.) I don't know what would stop other interested people from chiming in, unless perhaps that the article isn't widely watched. One way of getting round that might be to open an RfC (though if people don't care, they don't care). As for what has happened on talk so far, I'm quite unimpressed by Anastrophe's negative defense of the section. I.e. they take issue at length with Viriditas' reasons for removal, in some pretty lawyerly ways too, with much talk of "policy violations" ("you have the burden to show, specifically which materials are violations of policy - a blanket 'too many words, it's undue!' is not a valid argument", "None of your claims rise to the level of violations", "Please show me that there are no other articles on wikipedia with more than 769 words about someone who is not an expert", "The onus is on the editor who wishes to remove reliably sourced material", and in bold "I did not add any of this material to this article") But the only specific positive provided by Anastrophe for why this section needs to be so much longer than its sibling sections "Social and economic policy", "Views on AIDS", etc, is that Monckton is mainly known as a climate denialist (I think; I may have missed something, as the posts are pretty long). I don't think that's good enough, even if it's true (=sourced); can you source it? And in this context it doesn't matter who originally added the section; if you restore it, Anastrophe, you take responsibility for it, and you do need to show it's not undue nor the coatrack it looks like at first sight. It's no good claiming that Viriditas has to list particular bits in the section that are violations of particular policies, because no, he really doesn't. Viriditas' shortened version here looks good to me. Bishonen | talk 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

"very long -- 30 lines" - 30 lines is very long and undue weight? I'm very confused by this statement. "That seems to be wrong, as Viriditas opened a section on talk even before he removed the material." My issue is that very little time passed between Viriditas's statement that he was going to remove the material, and when it was removed. Only two editors, Viriditas and myself, had weighed in. There are quite a few more editors on wikipedia than the two of us, and it's considered reasonable to allow more than a single editor to weigh in as dispositive of consensus. "I think; I may have missed something, as the posts are pretty long". Is it really fair to represent what I've written, when derived from an incomplete reading of it? Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Anastrophe, I see you don't address my mention of WP:BRD and the propriety of making bold changes before discussion. Not interesting? You continue to insist it's "considered resonable" to have a discussion (among several editors, yet) before boldly editing the article. Well, it isn't. We have actual policies to the contrary. Please read WP:BOLD to see what's considered reasonable. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

• (Adding.) Also, Anastrophe, do you think you can get away with talking about Viriditas' "infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity" by wrapping it in a cloak of being reminded of a fictional character who had that ability..? You really can't. Please refrain from personal attacks on this board, they don't help your cause. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Yes, my words were intemperate; however, they were in response to editor Viridatis's wholesale distortion of my words, with a string of "you saids" where I clearly did not say the words he/she puts in my mouth - for example, "To recap, you've said that you don't have to justify your actions" - pure, unadulterated fiction, never said it. "When asked to explain yourself again" - pure, unadulterated fiction - editor Viriditas never once actually asked me a single question in the discussion on the talk page, to that point in it. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is, of course, a content dispute and not an admin issue, but the problem with Viriditas' version is that it doesn't make the rather obvious point that despite his popularity on the climate denial talk circuit, Monckton has absolutely no qualifications whatsoever in climate science and his participation in the debate has led to widespread condemnation and even mockery. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The version I linked to above does do just that, by removing any semblance of his faux scientific opinion and by simply stating that he went on his own personal climate change tour (indicating a personal, not a professional interest), followed by his invitation by Republicans (who jumped the shark on climate change 20 years ago) followed by his coverage in a documentary (criticized by none other than Delingpole himself) concluding with his impersonation of the state of Burma at the climate conference and his subsequent ejection from the event. If that doesn't show he has no qualifications and his participation has led to condemnation and mockery, then I don't know what does. And it only required 163 words to illustrate it, not 769. Bishonen's link differs in that it leaves in his opinion on the science, an opinion I had removed in the diff above. In any event, even if you still disagree, do you believe another 600 words is required? The picture I painted, of a man being thrown out of the UN climate conference for basically crashing the event speaks more to his lack of qualifications and mockery than any long-winded quote ever could. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• A lot of the drama seems to stem from the aggressive approach which seems to have been adopted. As far as edits/comments on this noticeboard, edit summaries like "The appeal to editors from the future is a nice touch, but it's used by POV pushers from time immemorial" only inflame the situation, as do the responsive comments like "most infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity". Similarly, the edit warring tends to create a spectacle, though fortunately there was no 3RR vio. Other than for each user to be advised to avoid editing disruptively, I don't see how further administrative intervention will help (or is otherwise necessary) here. If input is being sought on the content issues (which is what most of this thread seems to be about), wouldn't an article RfC be a more appropriate place to discuss and resolve the underlying issue? Or is the difficulty that each editor expects the other to open the RfC? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  While I have been an editor since 2006, I have not been an editor who has resorted to wikipedia's backend machinations to deal with editing I felt was disruptive. This is the first time in those eight years that I've started a formal complaint. Perhaps ANI was not the appropriate venue, sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  It's quite OK. In light of the issues raised with the editor you are complaining about within the last year, one cannot easily discount the editing (or editing style) as not being disruptive. That said, unless that is preventing the content issue from being determined, it's probably less taxing to focus on having the underlying content issue determined. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, it's quite inappropriate to poison the well against Viriditas by linking to JamesBWatson's block of him in August 2013. James' long block notice was admirable in giving an established user the courtesy of personally written comments, and in explaining very clearly how he had to change in order to get off the road to an indefinite block that his edit warring habits were heading for. (I was only one of the people who wrote to James to thank him for going to so much trouble, and for blocking in a respectful way.) Ncmvocalist, have you realized that there is no question of edit warring by Viriditas in this case? He removed a section of long standing (most admins don't call that a "revert"), and then reverted Antistrophe's restoration of it once. Antistrophe reverted twice, and Viriditas then left Antistrophe's restored long section in place, placing an "undue weight" tag on the section. Those seem to me the actions of a user who has learned to change his stripes as far as edit warring is concerned.

While I haven't really followed Viriditas' editing since James' block, I've checked it out a little after reading Nmvocalist's post (which I found quite concerning). These are my results: Viriditas has not been blocked again since JamesBWatson's August—November block. A read of Viriditas' talkpage history doesn't show any warnings concerning edit warring. (I do see a pretty recent ANI complaint mentioned here, unfortunately by a user who doesn't believe in permanent links, and I can't find the ANI thread. I do vaguely remember it, though, and I think it concerned incivility, not edit warring.) Nmvocalist, it's discouraging and retrograde when people insist on reminding those who has moved on of old sins, and wanting those old sins be taken into account. The comment "In light of the issues raised with the editor you are complaining about within the last year, one cannot easily discount the editing (or editing style) as not being disruptive" is extraordinary. It's blurry from all the negatives cancelling each other out, so I have to ask: Did you mean to suggest that this disagreement is about edit warring after all? If not, what exactly are you suggesting? That sanctions are never to be lived down? And when you refer in general to "the" edit warring — "Similarly, the edit warring tends to create a spectacle [what..?], though fortunately there was no 3RR vio" — whose edit warring are you talking about? You probably don't mean to be misleading, but the implication that there nearly was a 3RR violation is just that, misleading. Insofar as Viriditas is concerned, there wasn't even a 1RR vio. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

• Note. I've just noticed Collect has removed the long section and replaced it with his own short version, which seems to me much less reader-friendly and informative (or, even, less encyclopedic) than Viriditas' version, especially because of Collect's abrupt in medias res beginning and the absence of any framing of the reception/impact of Monckton's climate change views. I suppose it's a general law of Wikipedia that style and structure are bound to be the victims of content disagreements. :-( All the worse for our readers. Anyway, this is altogether pretty depressing. I'm done. Sorry for the TLDR and good night. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Reply to "Note' The section was absolutely unwieldy and crufty. I reduced it to the basic information about Monckton's views, which reasonably belongs in the BLP. I sought, per WP:CONSENSUS to create a compromise position between removal and massive "stuff" of marginal relationship to a proper biography. If his positions are clearly stated in the BLP, I fail to see why we need a sledgehammer to point out how evil the person is, especially since his positions are apparently quite moderate. I would also state the new section is shorter and more easily understood than the long version was. Cheers -- my intent was to reach a compromise while following Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Collect (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I started from scratch using the reliable sources about Monckton's words -- I did not think to use another version when it was easier to make sure my version accurately reflected the sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no wish to get involved in this issue, but since my block in August of last year has been mentioned, I will just say that I agree with Bishonen that that block is irrelevant, and that it was unhelpful to bring it up. Viriditas has not repeated any of the mistakes in the case under discussion here that I mentioned in my block notice, and so bringing them up, as Ncmvocalist has done, is an ad hominem argument that has no bearing on this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Bishonen, if I have in fact in some way made an attack or poisoned the well against Viriditas for being blocked last year due to edit-warring or JamesBWatson for framing an appropriately/insufficiently "long block notice" at the time, that was certainly not my intention and I apologise. The underlying concern raised from this thread seemed to me to be a concern about disruptive editing. I wasn't suggesting that any particular user was solely to blame for any of this, be it the inappropriate comments/edit-summaries on this noticeboard, or the series of reverts concerning one part of the article. That said, it seems to me the complaint was sparked by a single area of content being changed multiple times within a short space of time while there is clearly a dispute about changing the content.
• Yes, it was good that Viriditas started a discussion first about his concerns with the article and there was not a violation, but if a bold edit is not accepted after it was live for 9 minutes, what was the need to reinstate the bold edit in the 5 minutes that followed? Surely the tag could have been placed at that point itself, particularly where just one other user has participated in the discussion about the bold change and the dispute remains. Similarly, if a bold edit citing UNDUE and FRINGE was reinstated, was there a need to revert the edit within the 12 minutes after that? Surely outside input could have been sought at that point, and it might be better to err on the side of caution. The last part of the series was Collect's subsequent edit, but Bishonen, you've now noted that and I suppose he's responded with his reason for making the edit. It's not misleading at all to say there was no vio of 3RR (the bright line of edit warring) and that an otherwise standard content dispute on the article has become a spectacle because of the more aggressive approach taken in this case.
• The next question: why would an editor since 2006 perceive such a serious level of disruptive editing in relation to Viriditas from the above series of events that he feels a need to use administrative mechanisms which (he says) he has not otherwise resorted to using during his 8 years at Wikipedia? I think it's a stretch to say that the 'old sins', particularly the consequence of the most recent of them, played no part in the decision to come here. As you and JamesBWatson apparently suggest, I could be wrong.
• To elaborate, when JamesBWatson referred to Viriditas having problems dealing effectively with other editors with whom he had disagreements, or appearing "to be unable to conceive of anyone who opposes [his] position as doing so in good faith: anyone who is against [him] must have ulterior motives", I assumed that would extend to implicit accusations of POV pushing (or a tendentious IDHT editing-approach). I'd leave both of you (JamesBWatson and Bishonen) with the following to consider: do either of you think that the edit summary Viriditas used here was appropriate, particularly where it was directed to the complainant who is otherwise in a good faith content dispute? Or are you seeing clear and immediately obvious evidence of POV pushing tactics by the complainant?
• My turn to say sorry for the TLDR also in response to all those questions, and if the concern is maintained that I have said something which is still "extraordinarily" inappropriate, please let me know which portions so that I can strike these out accordingly. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Believe it or not, I'm staying out of this one, on the content issue. However Viriditas's comment on the RfC below is clear indication he his not interested in consensus or the pillars, only in WP:TE#Righting Great Wrongs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Update - options laid out

See Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#RfC so we can focus on preferred versions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Overtagging at sustainable development

Continue discussing the content issues on the talk page, and relax about the rest. Stop worrying about the tags (whether adding them or removing them). No need for admin intevention at this stage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Sunray (talk), recently made 3RR and over tagged sustainable development. I've tried to sort the dispute out on the talk page, and suggested to add what he deems missing, but instead he made several tag additions, some of which appear to be wrong. He is the only editor who complains about the article. prokaryotes (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of accusations here. First prokaryotes seems to be reporting a violation of 3RR, but I will set that aside, as he has not made a properly documented case at WP:AN3. However, I believe that accusation is a red herring. Prokaryotes and I have been discussing a problem with the Sustainable development article for sometime now. On April 8, I was alerted to some edits to sustainability articles made by prokaryotes that were of concern to another editor. When I took a look, I did see some problems and identified my concerns to prokaryotes on his talk page.

Following discussion, I realized that the problems were not actually initiated by him, he was simply perpetuating them (perhaps innocently). I tagged the article and began to document the problems on the talk page. Prokaryotes removed my tag. This has led to a protracted discussion. He has disputed much of what I've said, so I've tried hard to explain. Finally after documenting the most serious problem—my concern about WP:WEIGHT in the article—I put the "multiple issues" tag back (earlier today). He again removed it. So I put it back with a request that he leave the tag on the article. I explained on the talk page that I would go through the article and tag the various problems. When I began to do that, he again reverted the "multiple issues" tag and also some of the specific tags in the body of the article. Then he made this complaint of "overtagging" (sigh).

I am concerned that prokaryotes doesn't seem to be very familiar with the subject matter of the article and doesn't seem to understand core policies, such as WP:NOR and WP:VER. He is also, apparently, a stranger to the concept of collaborative editing. Sunray (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:TAGGING It is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags., thus 12 tags are to much. WP:TAGGINGIf you identify a issue with a page, and yet the issue is trivial or has a straightforward solution, it's usually best to fix it yourself! This is more productive than plastering a tag complaining about a trivial or easily fixed issue and leaving it for someone else to tidy up. prokaryotes (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:TAGGING is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Initially I just put one tag on the article. You said it wasn't justified. That was April 9. I have been patiently trying to explain it ever since. You pay no attention to what I say, so I have begun going through the article and flagging the problems. Now you object to that?? Help! Sunray (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and many essays are reflections of consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If they reflect consensus, then make them into policies! Easy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the policy-making process can be compared to beating one's head against a brick wall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sunray, discussed what he deemed problematic on the talk page with me and one another editor, it evolved around the different approaches (in particular a three or four domain/pillar approach) on that page, based on edits i haven't been involved. However, what he has done now is to add multiple tags to the article without acknowledging them on the talk page first. The one content problem discussed should not be a reason for a notice, because it may be because of missing content, which just should be added, if correct. The editor hasn't clearly communicated or identified errors. The various different tags made the article now very confusing to read. prokaryotes (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Signature Forgery/Impersonation by User:Zackdichens12

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:Zackdichens12 has decided he wants a new signature but it's exactly the same as mine (minus the colours/name), I've asked him to change but to no avail, I've also been reverted/warned by Werieth over it
Anyway totally understand everyone will have a similar signature but his is literally identical and I believe it comes under WP:SIG#Forgery which says "Altering the markup code of your signature to make it look substantially like another user's signature may also be considered a form of impersonation" - I honestly do consider it an impersonation, Cheers, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was literally identical I wouldnt be arguing this, however different text and colors makes this a non-issue. Werieth (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen on User talk:Zackdichens12, nobody is going to mistake one signature for the other. It isn't 'literally identical'. It is vaguely similar. As for example is my signature to the multitude of other contributors who use no markup and CamelCase in theirs. I suggest you forget about it, and find something useful to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

But it is identical tho .... If he even removed the arrows I wouldn't have a problem but it's clear he's just copied mine literally so I do consider it an impersonation, And trust me I want to move on but would rather this be solved, Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't looked, but is this a proxy for some underlying dispute that the two of you have? Or are you two actually getting this bent out of shape about silly signatures? Incidentally, I would also like to report AndyTheGrump for copying my signature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know nope, Haha you might aswell report everyone :), Joking aside as I said even if he modified it better I wouldn't have a problem to be honest, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

While the "design" of the signatures is the same, the content is entirely different, so there is not the least possibility that anyone will mistake one for the other. If both of these editors don't drop this ultra-silly squabble immediately, I suggest they both be required to use the standard sig. BMK (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you're someone I hugely respect so point taken, Case dropped lol. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:35, 21 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 User:Til Eulenspiegel – how to react to constant revert?

Here are a few edits that happened to me: I was making a quite small change in the wording in the lead of the article Ethiopia which was reverted by User:Til Eulenspiegel. Asking him on his user page about this, he proceeded to first give an answer, then delete the discussion. After asking him about this on his user talk page he then reverted my question. How should I proceed in this case? That user is not answering as to why he's reverting me, and he removes any attempt at discussions. Here are the relevant edits:

My initial edit on the article Ethiopia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=605023501&oldid=604694644

Til Eulenspiegel's revert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=605025645&oldid=605024646

My question on that user's page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605026721&oldid=593991901

His answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605027166&oldid=605026721

Then he's simply removing the question and answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605027222&oldid=605027166

Me, re-doing my change on the page Ethiopia, at the same time rephrasing the sentence to make it clearer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=605027227&oldid=605025645

Til, promptly reverting my change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=605027479&oldid=605027227

Me, contacting Til, this time on his user talk page, hoping to start a discussion instead of just a revert war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605029653&oldid=604225096

Til, reverting my discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605031401&oldid=605029653

Me, asking Til about his strange behavior, in the hope of getting an answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605034150&oldid=605027222

Til, reverting that change too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605035837&oldid=605034150

I finally put the discussion on my own user talk page:

User_talk:Jérôme#Discussion_removed_by_User:Til_Eulenspiegel

In the end, the initial point was just the small question whether the phrase "known to scientists" is appropriate on Wikipedia, and I'm well ready to accept arguments for why this change should or should not be made. Since this is a very small point of discussion, it should not be discussed here. Instead, I'm using the noticeboard because of user Til Eulenspiegel's incessant reverting, making any discussion impossible. Note also that Til Eulenspiegel wrote a few sentences in his revert edits.

Til Eulenspiegel if you read this: I'm not intending to have you blamed in any way; I'm just trying to get you to discuss issues – I think the best way forward is to reply, not to revert.

(BTW, yes I know that for my first comment I should have written on the user talk page, not on the user page – but I would have hoped for the started discussion to be moved to the user talk page, and not deleted.)

In the hope to resolve any possible conflict in a civil manner,

Jérôme (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing here, I have not done anything wrong whatsoever yet you keep spamming my home user page, yes, my home user page, and I keep reverting you. Then you drag it all out here blow by blow. What do you really want? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the user wishes to instead of reverting, discuss it with you. Instead, you revert all of the discussion attempts and refuse to. I'd do the same thing since I'd have tried multiple times to discuss, only to fall on deaf ears. Tutelary (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

How about he stops spamming my user page then come crying here when I remove it? I have no wish to discuss with him and cannot be forced to like this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Jérôme, why don't you start the discussion on Talk:Ethiopia instead of on Til Eulenspiegel's user talk. No one will remove your post there (maybe no one will discuss either, but it's worth a try). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• There's a generally accepted convention that if someone asks you to stop posting to their talk page, you should (the exceptions being required notices and the like). In this case he has, and he has shown you as much again by removing several of your posts and suggesting you are "spamming" his talk page. You don't have to agree with his assessment and he can't prevent you from posting elsewhere to begin a discussion, as Sluzzelin has suggested. But you should probably leave his talk page alone and posting diffs of you ignoring his requests probably won't help your cause. Stalwart111 06:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Agree about the talk page issue. But as Til is still reverting anything in the lead that doesn't say "known to scientists", although that phrase isn't in the relevant section of the article, I've taken this to WP:NPOVN#Attribution issue at Ethiopia - do we need to say "known to scientists"? -Jérôme (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Seems sensible - it's up to him whether he responds there and how. But from the looks of the commentary below, he's got other things to deal with now. Stalwart111 21:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for your comments. Me posting on Til's user page was my error – I intended to post on his user talk page. Anyway the reason I started this section here is not to discuss the actual wording of the actual Ethiopia article (which is can now be done on Wikipedia:NPOVN#Attribution_issue_at_Ethiopia_-_do_we_need_to_say_.22known_to_scientists.22.3F, or on Talk:Ethiopia), but to address the lack of discussion and simple reverting by Til. I don't intend to 'escalate' this issue, I was just trying to find a place where I can start a discussion about it that is not promptly deleted. Peace –Jérôme (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now blocked User:Til Eulenspiegel as they're clearly edit warring and have broken 3RR to boot. Their attitude to the NPOV post was also extremely unhelpful, pretty much coming down to "wrong place, won't discuss". It's starting to look like they don't want to discuss at all. Anyway hopefully when they come of the block they'll start discussing it somewhere. Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Navajoindian

The user Navajoindian has been making a lot of edits that add unsourced material to various articles and have poor formatting, redlinks, misspellings, and grammar problems. No edit summaries are ever provided for the edits. The user's Talk page has various warnings about this, covering the five weeks since the user began editing, but the user is generally not responding on the Talk page or changing behaviour.The only apparent response is one occasion on which the user removed a warning against POV editing and replaced it with "First i didnt fail!!!!". The user has been rather energetic – e.g., 17 edits yesterday – all exhibiting the same sort of behaviour. Some action appears to be needed. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this pattern of editing is not helpful; every single edit Navajoindian has made has been reverted, by no means exclusively by BarrelProof, and they've removed at least one speedy tag from an article they created. However, BarrelProof, you posted all your warnings about adding unsourced edits, using the templates {{uw-unsourced}} 1, 2, 3 and the scary 4, in rapid succession within the space of a quarter of an hour, 18 hours after the user's currently last edit. That's not how the "stepped" warning templates are meant to be used. A number 2 warning should only be posted if the user has ignored number 1 and continued the kind of editing for which they were warned, and so on up to number 4. The way you've done it, those warnings don't really "count", and therefore there's no basis for administrator action at this time. I'm pinging Seb az86556, an experienced user who seems pretty familiar with Navajoindian's editing, and who may be able to help here. (It was Seb's pertinent comment here that piqued Navajoindian into editing their own talk for the first and only time, in order to remove it.) Bishonen | talk 15:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC).

Yes, you're right about my warnings being issued in too-rapid succession. Sorry about that, although there were quite a few roughly similar comments there already before I came along. The user hasn't edited any further since my complaints, so perhaps this incident report can be closed soon with no further action needed. Thank you for taking a look at the situation. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this section open for another day or two. Navajoindian has now created a new article, an unambiguous copyright violation which I have deleted with a warning to the user. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

IRoNGRoN indef block - more eyes requested

Can I ask for a few more eyes on IRoNGRoN (talk · contribs) please. They seem to have gone in the space of a day from a good editor, to an angry spat over I know not what, to an indef block. This seems excessive for anything I can see reason for.

Declaration of interest: We've had minor overlaps on some motor racing articles. They seemed well-intentioned and working to improve things. Shame to lose them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

History: User_talk:JamesBWatson#Fresh_eyes_please Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• IronGron has been extremely uncivil to editors and admins. IronGron's has insulted editors who edit articles he was working on. After a chiding to be more civil and to be sure to not claim ownership IronGron escalated to cursing out editors and admins with very vile remarks for IP editors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moriori#irongron IronGron then avoids a temp 48hr block by changing IP's and curses out the admin. Another admin reviews the block and issues another warning and IronGron changes IP's to curse out that admin. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=604738721#Lockheed_A-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/220.236.52.29 After fair warning to not evade the block IronGron did so twice to insult admins. It is very likely IronGron is again avoiding the block. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moriori#Another_Likely_Block_Evasion_of_.E2.98.AD_irongron_.E2.98.AD_.28talk.29

IronGron edited articles at length but there was a large amount of cut and pasting done from other websites. Most of the copying was not in quotes and referencing was unclear to properly cite the source. Copy and pasting can create copyright issues and is lazy editing that should be avoided at least to prevent wikipedia from appearing as a pirating website. He jumped on other editors who attempted to improve an article. He cursed and cussed out editors and admins. He has avoided blocks on multiple occassions. It is hard to determine what has caused this irrational behavior pattern. Suggest to check to see if IronGron is a possible sock for another banned account. 172.56.11.206 (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that changing "mentally unstable" to "unstable" is somehow less of a personal attack?  the panda  ₯’ 13:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Seems to be a severe case of WP:OWN here. Not going to comment on the validity of his contributions (also allegations of mental instability is inappropriate for this forum), but a block is warranted solely based on his refusal to discuss matters in a productive fashion. If this case is an isolated incident and he is willing to contribute productively in the future (and provided that his contributions are not all copyright violations), I see no reason why we can't reassess his situation in the future. But right now, he's just digging himself into a deeper hole. —Dark 12:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see a block – but indef? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I never expected or intended that IRoNGRoN would remain blocked for ever. The initial block (placed by Moriori) was for 48 hours, for personal attacks. IRoNGRoN responded to this with block evasion and a further personal attack, as well as continuing the editing of the article where he/she had been involved in disagreement. I received a request to look at the case, and decided that a longer block would be justified, and made it a week. The hope was, of course, that this would convey the message that his/her current editing was unacceptable, and he would stop the personal attacks. The best outcome would be an unblock request in which he/she undertook to make no more personal attacks, the second best being that he/she sat out the week's block and then came back in a better frame of mind. However, IRoNGRoN's response was further block evasion and personal attack, so I increased the block length again. I also thought, and still think, that just repeatedly increasing the block length was not on its own an adequate way of dealing with the situation, and it was necessary to give a message conveying the message that the current actions were totally unacceptable. The way I did that was to give a warning that any continuation would lead to an indefinite block. My hope was still, of course, that IRoNGRoN would get the message and stop, but he/she responded with yet more block evasion and personal attack. What should I have done at that point? Perhaps brought it to this noticeboard for discussion? Anyway, what I did was to give the indef block that I had indicated was on the cards. I also placed range blocks to prevent continuation of block evasion via the same set of IP addresses that IRoNGRoN had been using. My expectation was that this would make it clear that the one way out was to make an unblock request. It may be that my big mistake was to assume that IRoNGRoN would realise that an unblock request was possible, and not to specifically invite IRoNGRoN to make an unblock request. (It may also be that he/she wouldn't have taken that option anyway, but obviously that is not a reason for not giving him/her every encouragement to do so.) In answer to Andy Dingley saying "I can see a block – but indef?" I say yes, indefinite, but that does not mean forever, it means until he/she indicates a readiness to change his ways. It may well have been a mistake not to spell out that the option of coming back was available, but we are dealing with an editor whose response to blocks and warnings that personal attacks are unacceptable is to keep evading blocks in order to make more and more personal attacks. I really do think that the correct response to that is "you may not come back to edit until you indicate that you will stop", not "you can have a short break and then come back, as far as we know with the same attitude". I shall post a message to IRoNGRoN's talk page inviting an unblock request. Unfortunately, of course, there is no way of being sure that he/she will read it, but if there is no response after a while, an email might do the trick. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, here is my attempt to reach out to IRoNGRoN and invite him/her to come back: [10] and here is his/her response: [11]. Here are some of the personal attacks that led to the block: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The latest uncivil response by IronGron here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRoNGRoN&oldid=605226167 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.10.95 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:AngBent repeat of edit warring on Avraam Benaroya

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.

---

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

Back in January, I noticed an outbreak of edit warring on Avraam Benaroya. The editing appeared to be associated with discretionary sanctions from the Balkans. User:AngBent has returned and appears to be editing again in the same vein, removing sourced content for what appears to be nationalist reasons. Given the sanctions in place I've no interest in getting involved in an edit war and bringing it here for wider community input. WCM_email 14:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[17] Continued to edit war after being reverted by another editor, so raised at WP:3RRNB. WCM_email 18:49, 21 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.

Contents removed from the Davido article

Greetings Administrators, I am not satisfied with the response Diannaa has given me regarding the removal of the "controversial incidents" section that I added to the Davido article. I understand that she has been cleaning up several articles created by another user, and has gotten rid of the several content that are in direct violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I appreciate her for doing that. What I don't appreciate is the response that I have been giving. In this edit, she removed what she felt was a copyright violation, and left an edit summary, stating: "remove "Controversial incidents" per WP:BLP: poorly sourced negative content about a living person". When I saw this, I went to her talk page and left her this note. I didn't agree with her "poorly source" comment, and told her that I cited two Punch references and a Premium Times reference. (Punch and Premium Times are two notable newspapers in Nigeria for those who don't know). How can she said that the content is "poorly source" when these are notable newspaper references? She also said that the contents of the section are negative. This sounds like a fan of Davido reading his article and removing things that they do not want others to read. A core fan of Michael Jackson cannot come to Wikipedia and read his child rape allegation and remove it simply because he/she thinks that the contents are "negative". Back to Davido. The incidents that happened in Nigeria are factual incidents. I would have understand if she had said that the first incident (him being at the scene of a bar fight) was a bit trivial since he didn't sustain any injuries. I personally don't know how a incident, which is backed by reliable sources, can be considered "negative". Should I only report the good things that Davido does and leave out the incidents he's been involve in? If I do that, will I not be censoring the article. The last time I check, Wikipedia is not censored, and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. The second incident (him allegedly beating up a taxi cab driver) received more coverage than the first incident. Diannaa also told me that the quotations I added to the second incident can be considered a copyright infringement. I told her that I quoted Davido and his publicist, and told her that I can remove the quoted content. I only provided the quotes to add neutrality to the article. If I omitted their quotes and what they said, the article would imply that I am taking sides with the prosecutor and not the defense (sorry, I know this is not a court). The truth is that I am just reporting on the incident, and writing from a neutral point of view. I agreed to remove the quoted materials. I told her that I would be adding the contents back and removing the quotations. She left this reply: "Regarding re-adding the content, once material has been challenged, you shouldn't re-add it unless there's consensus to do so on the talk page. Re-adding material once it's been challenged is (as you probably know) called WP:edit warring, and it's something you can be blocked for. Edit warring to restore contentious material on a biography of a living person (BLP) is definitely something you should not do." She also classified a bar fight as a WP:BLPCRIME. I told her that two or more people fighting in a club is not a crime. It only turns into a crime if something drastic happens. She said that the two incidents gave the article "undue weight". I asked her what that meant, and she said that "What I mean by undue weight is if these two incidents consume 60% of the article it means that these incidents is what the fellow is most known for, as opposed to his music career. Remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper. Will these two incidents still be considered noteworthy and remarkable five years from now? Ten years from now?". I disagree with her statements here. Anyone who knows Davido know him to be a young musician whose father is rich. The controversial incident section I added doesn't undermine what he's known for. The controversial section makes up 60 percent (a percentage Diannaa came up with) of the article because of the extensive quotation I added; the section is also long because of the significant amount of coverage the incident garnered. If I really take the time to write the second incident, it will be notable enough to have a separate article. I only summarized the incident. You guys can read the rest of my response here. After asking her for a response, she left this:

---

• The section "Controversial incidents" was 600 words on a thousand word article (60 per cent of the total article!), giving these two incidents undue weight. What I mean by undue weight is that when these incidents the article is not balanced and neutral, and gives the impression that these incidents are what the fellow is most known for, as opposed to his music career. Remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper.
• The fact that other biographies contain BLP violations is no reason to include them here.
• The fact that you're able to source negative content on a living person does not mean it automatically qualifies for inclusion in their article.
• We don't base content decisions, especially in our BLPs, on what would be "fair" to the real world persons involved. We do however especially with our BLPs, strive to avoid doing real-world harm to living persons.
• Material that's been challenged, especially contentious negative information on a BLP, should not be re-added unless you get consensus on the talk page.

---

I am going to dissect this one by one because I totally disagree with this. This is Diannaa's reason why the section (without the quotations) cannot be added back to the article. My Response for the first bullet: Once the quotations are remove from the section, the section will not make up 60 percent of the article, and thus will not give these incidents undue weight. Second bullet: That's true, but the fact that other biographies contain BLP violations means that they must be dealt with as well. One cannot deal with others and spare others. Third bullet: Again, how is sourcing factual content about a person "negative"? If this is the case, no BLP article on Wikipedia should have anything controversial involve in it. It should all be sugar coated and one dimensional. Fourth bullet: I don't understand everything she said. I did understand her last sentence (which sounds like something a core fan of someone would say). How is adding factual things that someone was involved in harming them? Fifth bullet: Again, I have proven that the information I added is factual. Saying something is "negative" just because you don't want to see it there is a poor excuse. First Diannaa said that the content was poorly sourced. When I told her that the sources are notable newspapers in Nigeria, she changed her comment to "undue weight". She finally said something that I agree with in the last part of the fifth bullet. In her own words, "should not be re-added unless you get consensus on the talk page." This means that the content can be re-added if a consensus is reach on the talk page. Well, I almost single handedly contributed to the article. If you check the article's page information, you'll see that I wrote majority of the article. The user who created the article didn't do much. I am huge fan of Davido, and if it wasn't for me, this article won't be where it is today. No other editor who have contributed to the article is commenting on the talk page. I don't think a consensus will ever get reach if the discussion stays on the article's talk page. I decided to bring this to a noticeboard because I disagree with Diannaa's stance on the situation. I also felt that we weren't able to resolve our differences on the article's talk page. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have a content dispute: are you asking for administrative action? Please remember that you don't own the article, and that when an editor makes a good-faith objection on BLP grounds, it's not appropriate to try to resolve the issue through a complaint on ANI. I'd suggest reading WP:BLP and in particular WP:BLPCRIME, which specifically advises against including such allegations unless a conviction is secured. Comparing Davido's celebrity to Jackson is a stretch, and the Jackson allegations were of a completely different order of magnitude. Please consider WP:3O, WP:BLPN or WP:DR. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I am asking for administrative action. I know that I don't own the article, I have only contributed significantly to it. I already read WP:BLP and I don't see how the contents I added violates the BLP policy. If this is in the wrong space, let me move my comments to WP:BLPN. I thought this was where I could get things resolved. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So you are asking for administrative sanctions against Dianaa because she disagrees with you? ("I decided to bring this to a noticeboard because I disagree with Diannaa's stance on the situation"). I strongly advise you to take this to BLPN for other opinions, since that is what you seem to want. This is the wrong forum. There is no edit war, and you and Dianaa have been civil to each other throughout your discussion.Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, please do not misunderstand me. Dianna's work to Wikipedia cannot be overstated. I can never ask for such a thing man. God knows that she does a GREAT job. I only want someone to look into what I'm saying. Check the sources I referenced, and make a conclusion. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I really thought that this would be simple. The only reason why I disagree with Diannaa's decision was because she believes that the sources I cited were "poor", and that the content violates the BLP policy. If someone tells me that the first incident is trivial, I might understand. As for the second incident, there are too many sources. In addition to the three sources I cited, I was able to find 4 more reliable sources. There are too many reliable sources to just dismiss the incident and not include it in the article. I hope I was able to clarify things. I can't come here and disrespect administrators. I understand the severity of what you do here. This simple matter doesn't have to get so complex. Versace1608 (Talk) 04:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Versace, ANI is not for content issues. When you disagree with someone's "stance", that's immediately the realm of dispute resolution. When someone tells you in a BLP that the sources are "poor", then your first step is always WP:BLPN. At the same time, it's your role to go find better sources. However, even if you had the best-sourced material, discussion on the article talkpage might actually determine that the information should not be in the article anyway - possibly because of WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE or a dozen other reasons. Remember: at times, consensus seems to trump verifiability :-) There is nothing here that requires admin intervention because we don't deal in content, and as long as you don't re-add poorly source material into a BLP, none of us have to act :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me add: "controversy" sections should typically be TINY and incredibly well-sourced the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredin323

I am kind of at a loss how to deal with User:Fredin323. He has been edit warring at California State University, Fresno (and also Topeka, Kansas, but this posting is about Fresno State.) He continues to delete sourced information about student demographics such as here, despite there being a consensus at Talk:California State University, Fresno#Student Demographics to include it as is done in 22 out of 23 CSU articles on Wikipedia. He is now removing all the formatting changes and duplication removal done here and here. He also appears to be editing as User:Chessandcheckers which is at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fredin323. He recently came off a block for edit warring and has resumed the same tactics. Recommend a longer block or stronger because of the edit warring and probable sockpuppetry. Bahooka (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This notice seems to have become buried with no response from an admin about the continued edit warring and sock puppetry of this user. I'm hoping that an admin will be able to review this request or let me know if I need to provide additional information. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Really could use some help here. The User:Fredin323 continues to edit war and remove legitimate edits just now here, now as User:Chessandcheckers. This is already at WP:SPI. Is there a more appropriate forum to have admin stop this person. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bahooka:, I doubt anything can/will be done until the SPI is checked. If the eediting is blatant vandalism them report at WP:AIV to stop any disruption in the mean-time. GiantSnowman 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, he has been reverting everyone against consensus and destroying formatting, etc. It is beyond a content dispute, it is purely disruptive. I will take it to AIV. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Persistent BLP violation: accusation of attempted murder

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

---

Requesting indefinite block for 158.182.66.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IP 158.182.66.71 has been repeatedly adding an unsourced accusation of attempted murder to Alexian Lien beating and Talk:Alexian Lien beating. The IP was blocked by Materialscientist (talk · contribs) at AIV for these edits, but as soon as the block expired, 158.182.66.71 was back with more of the same. But this time a block was declined on AIV. Darkwind (talk · contribs) wrote: "This appears to be a good-faith effort to improve the article, and I suggest working with this anonymous editor accordingly. If that fails, please take to ANI."

After having been warned repeatedly regarding the policies of WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NOR, and then having been blocked for it, coming back and beating the same dead horse is not in any way "a good-faith effort to improve the article". All of the edits from 158.182.66.71 to the Alexian Lien beating article from 6 February 2014 until now push the same unsourced POV and they have shown no sign of getting the point or a willingness to follow Wikipedia policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any accusations of murder since the last block expired.--v/r - TP 18:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Here. It's an improvement (kind of) that it's on the talk page, though the BLP policy makes no such exception, per WP:BLPTALK. And this and this edit-warring in the article are the same unsourced POV pushing and defamation of a living person that he was blocked for.

Per previous discussions and previous consensus, there is not one reputable, published source that thinks the victim of this beating should be charged with any crime, not even an op-ed. It's entirely a forum opinion, and most likely the work of trolls at that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The diffs you've presented do not say that he murdered anyone. And you're misunderstanding BLPTALK. We routinely discuss negative information about living persons on talk pages. Either to convince someone to quit adding it, or to develop a consensus to include it. I don't see that diff as so outside the norm as to block them for it.--v/r - TP 19:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it's attempted murder, not murder. I never said murder, I said attempted murder. The IP is accusing Lien of attempted murder, not murder. An unsourced accusation of attempted murder is the defamation we are talking about. I think we're hung up on an irrelevant bit of confusion. The unsourced defamation is quite clear, as far as I can see.

I believe I'm right about BLPTALK. There is no negative information to discuss. There is not a single source which has presented any negative information such as criminal charges against Lien. The only negative information about the victim here comes from the IP's imagination. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The only one being caught up on atempted murder versus murder is you. I haven't cared in the slightest. And no, the editor has not made any accusations of attempted murder since the block expired. Your diffs above do not show that. And yes, there are reliable sources which make the claim that Alexian Lien should stand trial for murder and it took me 2 minutes on Google to find them: [18][19][20][21].--v/r - TP 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Here it says I think the name of the article should be changed to "attempted murder of Edwin Mieses". How is that not an accusation of attempted murder against Lien?

The links you provided are not reliable sources. For example, the "attempted murder" claim here is from an anonymous commenter. No credible source has made this accusation. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

SMH - Editors are allowed to discuss editorial changes on talk pages. WP:BLPTALK says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." If the idea is resoundingly rejected (or has been before), it can be removed from the page. But proposing a move is not a BLP violation. Such a strict reading of WP:BLP would stifle any controversial discussion of a subject at all and give us an entirely whitewashed encyclopedia. You couldn't even criticize whitewashing because doing so would be a BLP violation. No, you're overreacting here. And about that source, how do you get an anonymous commenter from that? The title of the article is "Arrest Alexian Lien for Attempted Vehicular Manslaughter", it is published by the Salem News from Salem, Oregon, and written by Tim King. Sure, it's an Op-Ed piece, but that just means that you attribute it in the author's voice and not Wikipedia's.--v/r - TP 21:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm convinced the IP is here for no reason other than to violate the BLP policy, I'm going to let it go. Give him enough rope, and he will earn a block. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably for the best. He's obviously got a POV and is here to right great wrongs.--v/r - TP 22:24, 22 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.

Personal attacks leading to a possible bad faith nomination for Yes Sir Boss

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss (2nd nomination)

Editor Barney the barney barney has been involved in several personal attacks which I chose to ignore despite how highly unacceptable they were: here and here. I never ANI something so trivial, however I consider Barney's recent actions more serious and disruptive.

Editor lacks an understanding as to what fall into the category of speedy delete. My article was well cited and included sources from BBC, Huffington Post, and FMV Man. The previous version was apparently promotional in tone which I cleared. User:Tokyogirl79 has declined the speedy. Barney has accused me of adding spam and vandalism to Wikipedia which obviously is not true. I've since resubmitted the article through AfC which passed.

Barney continued additional personal attacks found here accusing other editors of incompetency despite proper procedure being followed.

The last straw was in his AfD which he accused me of WP:COI which is completely unfounded. This leads me to believe this nomination may be in bad faith.

It appears that this user has a history of improper attacks and I am requesting a temporary block. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The article was clearly nominated in good faith. The article is quite frankly, a bag of poo. It doesn't meet the required guidelines, due to complete lack of significant coverage, probably never will meet any guidelines, and honestly is pushing to be a speedy delete. I see no reason why WP:BOOMERANG should apply and that Valoem (talk · contribs) should get double the block he suggests for suggesting the block in the first place. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons you stated for deletion was that I was a WP:COI editor, do you have evidence for this, because if not that is an improper personal attack. Because you are attempting to delete an article on false grounds it is considered disruptive. I could have ANIed on your first incident, but took the high road and simply ignored them, this however, shows me that turning the other cheek is not always appreciated. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks behind any of Valoem's links. The old version of Barney's talk page doesn't even feature any interaction between the two of them, just Valoem using a tone that's no less combative than Barney's. Nothing to see here, move along. Lagrange613 16:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed it the attack is here: "On unnotable subjects such as Yes Sir Boss (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss), then other people would not feel compelled to spend their time in an essentially unproductive manner fixing your mess? This was a stonewall speedy delete, any day of the week, so lecturing me that it is a bit like trying to teach your grandmother to suck rancid eggs - I can tell their rancid, please don't pretend that they're not. I'm not as stupid as you clearly think I am." Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, not a personal attack, just a combative tone. Maybe a little uncivil, but that merits a polite warning à la Tokyogirl, not the drama multiplication of ANI. Your reply to Barney above feels pretty wikilegal. I recommend you back down before this boomerangs. Lagrange613 17:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Teaching grandmother to suck eggs helps with context.--v/r - TP 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No reason to discuss further if you do not consider it a personal attack. I've ignored that attack nonetheless. To AfD an article on the grounds that claim I have a COI, is the main issue for this ANI. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD is an uncivil place. Sometimes it's best to just ignore the incivility, as long-time users, who are the major contributors there, are skilled at walking the line between incivility and personal attacks. Accusations of a COI are insulting, yes, but they're not necessarily an insult. Someone once filed a frivolous COI case against me on COI/N. I was deeply insulted, to say the least. Eventually, I decided to just ignore it; the filer had no evidence at all, and my angry protestations were just prolonging the situation. I suggest you both just drop it and abandon any grudges. It's not worth it, and neither of you have done anything worthy of sanctions yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello everyone, I'm User:Anupmehra, and I'm invited to make a comment here, by User:Valoem. I didn't knew him before until the ongoing AfD discussion here. I have never interacted with the User:Barney the barney barney either and other editors who have already given their input on this incident.

I'm a AFC reviewer and Draft:Yes_Sir_Boss was one, I reviewed and considered eligible for inclusion today. I noticed, Yes_Sir_Boss is redirect to some other article, therefore I tagged the redirect under CSD#G6 criteria of speedy deletion and a template note was automatically posted on the draft page to move it to articles space, for the admin deleting the redirect. Later, I noticed that, my edit to speedy redirect was reverted by some editor (diff. link) and the draft I reviewed was tagged with CSD#G4 for deletion by the same person (diff. link). It clearly indicate either vandalism, disruptive or bad-faith editing. Some other uninvolved editor noticed this incident and raised it in an ongoing discussion on User_talk:Tokyogirl79 page, the user said, "[..]the reviewer doesn't actually have a clue[..]" (diff. link). Well, the reviewing admin User:Favonian declined the speedy deletion (diff. link). The disruptive editing did not stop here, the user brought a clearly notable article to AfD (diff. link). It looks like a WP:DUCK case, where the user wants the article to get deleted any how. He doesn't hesitate to make personal attacks for this purpose, as such here. One could simply review his talk page history for some other instances, where he repeatedly makes personal attacks.

I'm not regular to ANI, and this is why not sure, if above does bring a sanction or not. But, the persistent disruptive and bad-faith editing and a long history of making personal attacks ([22], [23], [24], [25]) suggests something must be done,, to put an end to all this. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So now bringing an article to AfD after CSD has been declined is evidence of bad faith, and it's a personal attack to not respond to a message on one's talk page? Lagrange613 23:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Anupmehra, actually bringing an article to AFD after a declined CSD is the correct thing to do if you believe the article is not notable. The two deletion processes used two completely different criteria. CSD is very strict and most articles do not meet the criteria to be deleted. Articles that can not be deleted through CSD can still be deleted at AFD. Also the article is not clearly notable based on the discussion so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss (2nd nomination). GB fan 00:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the point has been missed here. I have no issues with him bring the article to AfD if he feels it is not notable. However, it is a given that an article coming from AfC does not fall into the speedy criteria, which Barney still tagged. This compounded with multiple personal attacks, plus an attempt to delete based on the false claims of me having a COI pushed me into this ANI. Do we have an explanation for this behavior? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Barney x 3 was asked to be less bitey. Valoem has been advised that AfD discussions are often unpleasant with experienced editors sometimes being careful to toe the line of incivility and personal attacks without going over it. The article for deletion discussion is proceeding. Is this resolved? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GB fan for pinging me. I'm here, either being mis-understood or mis-quoted. I didn't mean to say that bringing an article to AFD following CSD decline is a disruptive or vandalism or bad-faith editing. I wanted to say, if some one tags, a reviewed and approved AFC submission awaiting for uncontroversial deletion of redirect (CSD#G6) in mainspace under speedy deletion criteria CSD#G4, then it is disruptive. Last AFD was 3 years ago, CSD#G4 clearly says, it applies only for "most recent deletion discussion". This kind of edit from an experienced editor suggests notion of disruptive editing. Making a revert, as this, is disruptive. An experienced editor, tags an article having multiple RS including BBC and Huff. post, with some CSD tags, then it is disruptive. Making a personal attack as such, this, is disrupting! And, there's long history, if someone reviews the user talk page and contribution history. He has already been advised multiple times by more experienced editors as such admins, (click here), but as it does not seem to stop, there, it warrants something, to put an end to all this.

This is a summary of all what I earlier said, Hope, it is clear this time. Give me a chance to clarify, if it still is not clear. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to the line in your earlier statement, "The disruptive editing did not stop here, the user brought a clearly notable article to AfD" It appears that you are saying that Yes Sir Boss is clearly notable and that the editor that brought it to AFD was being disruptive. If that was not your intention, I misunderstood. GB fan 00:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with BtBB. If you look at his block log, I was the last person to block him (for edit-warring at, of all places, an ANI archive) and I've had to give him warnings at other times. So I'm no apologist for him. Then again, I've also sided with him in disputes, and he's been helpful at SPI, see this case which I closed that he did a good job of putting together. I've found him to often be rude but never crossing over into personal attack territory. What I got out of this report is that he screwed up. He tagged a page for G4 that quite clearly didn't meet the criteria. I don't think it was done maliciously, I think it was just wrong. I also don't see the AfD as malicious either, and obviously it wasn't completely out of line because so far I'm seeing a reasonable amount of support for the deletion (though it seems like there's no consensus either way right now). I'm having trouble understanding where the COI accusation came from (what is the nature of this conflict of interest?) and BtBB should retract that if there's nothing to back it up. But that's about the worst of what I've looked at. Calling someone's contributions poor, and accusing them of spam, those aren't personal attacks, they're criticisms of a person's actions. There's a difference. -- Atama頭 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:B!ttu

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:B!ttu moved his userpage, and then moved it into the main namespace. I'm not sure where to leave messages, but he's also been removing AfD and db-person templates from the new page: Kang Jun Ho. I'd like an admin to investigate and take appropriate action, probably including fixing the moved pages and redirects, and probably also imposing a temporary block. I'll put the appropriate ANI notices on his talk page and some moved pages as well, to be sure the message gets through the system. --Slashme (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: User:Yngvadottir has stepped in with admirable restraint and a very suitable response. Thanks! --Slashme (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid the user has decided not to accept my solution; the article about himself is now at User:Kang Jun Ho, but he has twice removed the template identifying it as a user page, so I have nominated it for speedy deletion. He also appears to be using two accounts (B!ttu as well as Kang Jun Ho, to which he was renamed last month), further confusing the picture. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty confusing. I think what happened is that B!ttu's account was created on April 30, 2013. The account was then renamed to Kang Jun Ho following this request at CHUS/Simple, which was done by Xeno. But then I see the user B!ttu being "automatically created" about 4 hours after that rename occurred, which I suspect was the editor creating a new account with the old B!ttu name (that's the only scenario that I can think of that explains what I see in logs). They've edited under that extra account since then. To top all of this off, Kang Jun Ho created another account called Kangjunho.

I'll also note, all of this bizarre behavior has been done with the singular goal of self-promotion. I see no action done by any of these accounts that is in any way constructive to Wikipedia. This seems to be nothing but a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:SPAM. The best course of action is probably to block Kang Jun Ho as an advertising-only account (self-advertising) and per WP:NOTHERE, and block the other two accounts as sockpuppets. -- Atama頭 22:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree: despite very reasonable approaches, this user doesn't seem to be interested in changing his behaviour, so your suggestions make perfect sense. --Slashme (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see this edit - I have left two warnings about this kind of behaviour. Three users have already been involved in replacing tags that have been removed by Kang Jun Ho. The user needs to be blocked now. --Slashme (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

He's been putting {{edit semi-protected}} on the pages, apparently wanting semi-protection.--Auric talk 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

He's not going to be doing it any longer. I've done exactly what I suggested above. I've blocked Kang Jun Ho indefinitely for self-advertising, and blocked the others as sockpuppets. -- Atama頭 22:45, 22 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.

Can anyone convince me I shouldn't block this editor?

So far as I can see, Nasirakram1440 (talk · contribs) (and an IP, possibly his) has been adding copyvio from [26] to Tajik people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the url is to the 2000 version but virtually the same as today's, I went that far back to make sure they weren't copying us. I ran into this user when another editor pointed out Wikipedia:Long-term abuseLysozym which was some sort of complaint about User:Lysozym - no big deal, just said "This user delibrately removes parts of "Tajik People" on Wikipedia. Initial claims were that some parts of the article is not backed by source, after providing credible sources the user still removes list of well known tajik people and parts of this article. I think he has some sort of political agenda and trying to hide the facts. Kindly take appropriate actions regarding this user. Thank you." I've deleted it as an attack page and told him to come to ANI if he has complaints. I warned him about copyvio and he posted to my talk page User talk:Dougweller#What do you think? denying it is copyvio and saying he has two sources (one.[27], clearly failing WP:RS which I don't follow as it is clearly copy and paste from the afghan-network.net website. Despite my warnings that I would block himn he has added the copyright material again. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The two sources i provided to Dougweller are as follows. 1: http://books.google.com.af/books?id=QdXpUNfNANYC&pg=PA139&dq=tajiks+of+afghanistan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uXBFU7SpO4b27AbSkYC4Dw&safe=on&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tajiks%20of%20afghanistan&f=false 2: http://books.google.com.af/books?id=mC9RsIYy8m8C&pg=PA344&dq=tajiks+of+afghanistan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uXBFU7SpO4b27AbSkYC4Dw&safe=on&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tajiks%20of%20afghanistan&f=false

Dougweller states that it has been taken from [28] which is completely incorrect. As you all can see it has been taken from these two sources. Please open the sources i provided and look at it for yourself and decide. Dougweller keeps on deleting parts of "Tajik People", Sometimes a list of Tajiks from the page without any reason. Please refer to view history of the page for this. I don't know why he is doing this. Now he is trying to block me. I have engaged in talk with him and he seems to provide no logical reason for it nor according to wikipedia rules. My request to admins is please take appropriate measures in this regard and all these acts from Dougweller seems to indicate an act of censorship and vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirakram1440 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

*Thumbs down, continues munching on bread*. It's almost like the dude's not even trying to be convincing. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure whether the book (where I found a version claiming to be from 2000) or the website had it first but they both pre-date us and both claim copyright. Could this be a case of Nasirakram1440 not understaning copyright? Unless I'm missing something they've not had copyright properly explained to them - there's a buried noticed on their page but I suspect they may not even be aware of it's importance given their later comments. It appears to me that they don't claim that it's not a copyright violation but rather claim the book didn't copy the website which is a quite different thing. No where do I see any indication that this user even knows about copyright or that it has been explained to them or am I missing something? @Nasirakram1440: - I suggest you go and read WP:COPYPASTE to understand what the problem is here. Dpmuk (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nasirakram1440, from a legal point of view there is actually no difference between copying a text from a book or a website. The problem is that you cannot simply take any text that has been published before and insert it here word by word at Wikipedia under Wikipedia's free licences. Only the original authors may republish their texts under such licences, but neither you nor anyone else must copy and paste their work here. There is a big difference between using a book as a source to proof your own writings in a Wikipedia article and simply copying the original texts that others have written. As Dpmuk wrote, this is explained in WP:COPYPASTE. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nasirakram1440: 1) Do not "copy & paste". 2) Solve the issue(s) on talk page/discussion. --Zyma (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think Nasirakram1440 pasted anything, actually, but copied the book rather than the website. Their text has a typo whereby "the bulk of Afghanistan's educated elite" has become "the build of Afghanistan's educated elite", (which doesn't make any sense). This suggests they typed the text by hand from the Google scan of the book, or indeed from the print book itself, rather than copypaste it from the website. Doug, assuming as much good faith as possible, I suppose they may have been confused when you said it had been copied from a website that they may not even have seen. Now that Dpmuk has taken their copyright education in hand, and they have also been warned about edit warring, you might as well hold off with the block. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

• • That makes sense and is more or less in line with what I guessed, although I'm concerned that they couldn't understand my copyvio notice. Dpmuk says there is a notice "buried on their page" and that copyright hasn't been explained to them. I agree it doesn't have a section heading and perhaps that is something that can be fixed in Twinkle, I'll ask. But Nasirakram has some responsibility to read his talk page and certainly not to accuse me of vandalism - perhaps someone else might discuss good faith with him. Good call on the typo. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV is broken

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

---

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism has been broken for at least several hours. None of the user-generated reports are showing up. Not sure if this is a bug in MediaWiki or if some broken template farther up the page is causing the problem or what. (Purging the page cache has no effect.) Could someone knowledgeable in such problems please investigate? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it - the hidden comment at the top of the section hadn't been closed correctly, so it hid everything beneath it. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Can't believe I missed that. Oh, and not that it matters much, but the unclosed comment meant that reporters' ~~~~ markup didn't get expanded. When you closed the comment, all those codes got expanded to your signature. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that - I could try and fix it by carefully copying bits of the history, but frankly it's not worth the effort for a page that's updated so frequently. Guess I'll just have to take the flak for a bunch of reports I didn't make. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:54, 23 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.

WP:UAA

Can we get some eyes over at WP:UAA? We are getting quite the backlog thanks. Whispering 18:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Two perhaps related issues involving LordFixit

There is a rather contentious discussion going on concerning the deletion of Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC here. I discovered this morning that User:StAnselm had struck out all edits of User:LordFixit in the discussion (diff). I reverted this because a quick look at LordFixit's talk page didn't show the usual notices for this sort of action. HoweverI found that User:Jpgordon had indeed indefinitely blocked LF for "Abusing multiple accounts". I see no sockpuppet investigation or other proceedings so I'm puzzled as to what is going on here.

That said, I am having issues with LordFixit's conduct in this discussion, particularly this threat: "If the category stays, I will make sure all articles have the SPLC listing with a source in the body of the article." It seems to me that that such a promise to disregard consensus is an unacceptable statement of ownership. Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat. He was promising to make sure that all articles in the category were properly sourced to show that they wre on the SPLC list. That seems to be a good thing, not a bad thing. The block was a CU block, see User talk:Exposed101. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a block by a CU, not an official declared "checkuser block", for what it's worth. Looks like a good hand/bad hand attempt. I've got a short fuse for those, perhaps. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that all of the controversial cases are already so tagged because of the notability of the controversy, but however correct such a designation would be (and technically, using the SPLC itself as the sole source would be questionable), in context it comes across as a threat. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit confused here policywise. Folks are striking all edits of his in that article, as though they were posted in violation of a ban. As Exposed101 didn't even start editing until April 19, LordFixit was not in any violation that I know of when he made most of those comments. Is there something that makes them inherently invalid now? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC) added: oh, and as an editor that raised concerns about groups being misplaced into this category, I will confirm what Dougweller said: this was a good faith attempt to address concerns and not a threat to commit ownership. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also noticing another editor here, and I see from his talkpage that I'm not the only one who sees possible connections:

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

He appeared abruptly, settled into some of the same topics, and is also a participant in the CfD. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've personally observed Drowninginlimbo's editing habits and have found them to be mainly oriented around gender. This is not something that is strange, as SPLC does some distinctive work for some things related to gender. Anywho, is there anything you wish to claim about the user, Mangoe? Tutelary (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary stated "another suspicious account", however, I was personally involved in Exposed101's blocking. This whole thing is very strange. For one thing, I live in an entirely different city to the one listed on LordFixit's user page. Yes, I am involved in the CfD. I follow the Southern Poverty Law Center and am interested in civil rights. I have to say, did you really have to drag this to the ANI? If I were a sockpuppet I would have been picked up by the checkuser. Are you suggesting that every user that voted oppose deletion is checked against each other, as well as every user who voted support deletion? That would take a while but maybe it would stop sidetracking the discussion - Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mangoe: If you were concerned about the block, why didn't you ask Jpgordon on his user talk page instead of taking it to ANI? Also, you realize that as a CheckUser, if Jpgordon was looking at Exposed101's data (and it looked like he did according to this) then he would have seen Drowninginlimbo as a connection as well, but clearly that did not happen. And finally, I compared Drowninginlimbo and LordFixit behaviorally, and they don't seem particularly connected (really, out of over 1,000 contributions from each editor they only had a few editing overlaps and their edit summary usage is different, among other things). -- Atama頭 16:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall why I decided to go here from the start but having done so the conversation needed to stay here. If nobody sees any issue with DIL then I think we're done here. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you not going to apologise? Your accusation was lazily researched and disruptive --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Page protection at Bundy standoff

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 protected the article Bundy standoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for ten days as a result of a content dispute. I received a request on my user talk page by user:DHeyward (not a party to the content dispute) to reduce or remove the protection. I have repeatedly stated that I would be happy to remove page protection earlier than it is set to expire if consensus is reached on the article talk page. Not happy with my initial response, they have also posted the request at WP:RFPP and at WP:AN#Bundy standoff requesting that the page protection be reduced or removed - the arguments have included claims that the page protection was done outside of process[29], questioning my competence in the use of page protection[30], and now arguing that my actions were out of line because I never stated how I learned of the content dispute in the first place[31] (for the record, I came across the content dispute via Special:RecentChanges).

This has resulted in concurrent discussions at all three forums. I have requested at RFPP and AN to keep discussions on a single forum of their choice - or better yet, to start a discussion on the article talk page to resolve the initial content dispute; but they continue to post at both RFPP and my user talk page. As it's not productive to have concurrent discussions about the same subject in multiple forums, I have elected to choose this forum for further discussion. All future responses by me in the other forums will be to direct them to this one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There was apparently an initial discussion on the noticeboard here [32]. Barek did not comment before enacting a ten day Full protection on the page. I requested that he reduce the level and/or time for the protection on his talk page as this is a current event. I requested the page protection be reduced at RFPP as Barek did not reply immediately and failed to properly template the page (indicating unfamiliarity) . It seems the edit war is really a two party dispute over a minor aspect and would be better handled with 3RR and edit warring rather than labeling a minor 2 party dispute as a "content dispute." The result of Full PP is to reward one party of the edit war with a preferred version. It is obvious that editor sanctions are more productive than page protection when the dispute is so narrow. Thousands of Wikipedians are thwarted when a 3RR block or semi-protected or 1 day full PP would suffice. This article is a current event and freezing it to an editors preferred version is counterproductive. I am not a party to the dispute but recognize that the actions of Barek have limited everyone from participation in any capacity. It is not a solution to eliminate participation because two editors violate 3RR policy. --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like you to read No personal attacks. The indicating unfamiliarity implies that the admin is inferior to his job and is therefore a personal attack. Second, the 'lock icon' is usually added automatically by a bot, and admins just let the bot take care of it. However, the bot does not have sysop (admin) privileges, and cannot edit the page to add the icon. (But do you really need it? It doesn't add much anywho.) Tutelary (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Implying that someone did not perform a task according to the rules is not the same a stating "You are inferior". If reasonably and calmly questioning the decisions and technical implementations of an admin becomes an example of a Personal Attack, then WP is well and truly f*cked. Eaglizard (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, DHeyward can be part of the solution if they choose. Instead of looking for process technicalities and making accusations of admin competence, the most productive solution is to start a discussion on the article talk page (since the start of the protection, DHeyward has not made a single comment on the article talk page - not about the content dispute nor any other content). It's certainly not DHeyward's responsibility to resolve; but parties who have an interest in the article forming a consensus on the material would be the most productive solution to both remove protection early as well as avoiding future disruption from the same content dispute.

That said, if another admin wants to reduce the total duration to three or five days, we can certainly reduce it - and if the content dispute resumes, re-protect the article again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Barek: I apologize if you took my actions as being against you personally or even as an admin. The template is important because it tells users (especially new users) where to go to get protection lifted. The first place is the admin's talk page. Second place is RFPP. The WP:AN entry was already in place by another editor so I noted it there. I didn't forum shop this or drag out beyond the the places that are specifically created for this. I think we may differ on what is a "content dispute" and what is an "edit war" and that's my impetus for getting the PP lowered. In my mind, "content disputes" involve a large number of editors that are reverting each other and no one is violating 3RR. It looks like a 5 on 5 match. Page protection stops it in the least disruptive fashion. "Edit wars" involve 1 or 2 editors that are breaking rules with multiple reverts, personal attacks, etc. The least disruptive method is editor sanctions to stop their disruption. In this case, I saw only an "edit war" which is why I requested it be lowered. I didn't consider that you took the action out of process, rather the action itself was not achieving the goal it's intended too. It's a judgement call and I hope you can see that my request wasn't malicious or personal in any way. I don't consider your decision for full PP to be malicious or personal, either, and it's clearly a tool outlined for content disputes. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposed Reduce protection to 30-days semi-protection and place article under general sanctions for 60 days. Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor disrupting that article with escalating blocks, a topic ban, or restrictions on editing such as a 1RR.--v/r - TP 17:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems fair, though 1RR for the article is probably justified anyway - WP:BRD needs to be followed and disruption of the actual content kept to a minimum. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. --DHeyward (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi is supposed to only be for vandalism. It should not be used to make an enrolled user win a content dispute over an IP editor. Unless there's persistent IP vandalism from multiple addresses (which happens, but I don't think I saw it claimed for this article), the article should be either unprotected or full protected. Have we forgotten this? 70.36.142.114 (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with semi (because there's no indication of IP abuse; the existing protection is due to a content dispute where no talk page consensus yet exists). However, I support the other implementations of 60-day general sanctions, and would support 1RR on the article as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This was the content dispute that you protected the article for [33]. It's summed up completely with an IP contributions. I count 4 reverts by this IP, no warning, and page protection as your remedy. I don't see any other issues involving a "content dispute." It was on the main noticeboard and was dropped because of your page protection but you didn't note it there. One of the editors the IP was reverting actually made Talk Page comments [34]. It's pretty clear that the IP isn't looking for consensus and the other editor engage him multiple times without 3RR violation. Also the IP editor was asked to create an account because IP hopping made it hard to follow their edits and commets [35] --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The point of semi-protection is that it means only logged-in editors can edit, which means that we can identify and block anybody who edit-wars and they cannot immediately walk around the block. It allows the article to be editable while reducing the disruption caused by drive-by anonymous edits. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with TParis as to what steps need to be implemented.--MONGO 01:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is content discussion at User talk:70.8.153.27 that more property should have been on the article talk page. It's in the wrong place but it's incorrect to to say that 70.8.153.27 wasn't engaging in discussion. The points being made on both sides were reasonable, even if the tone wasn't the greatest. I can't do it right now and will be away for several days, but it would be nice if someone could explain things like 3RR to the person (and block if necessary) rather than going overboard with protection and general sanctions. The problem seems quite localized. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by User:Barek I have just seen the following comment at User talk:Barek, and I guess it applies here.

I also have a request (for you or anyone who reads this). I am travelling again for work, and may not have PC access again until Thursday or Friday this week. And, unfortunately, my phone seems to hate editing ANI. Can someone post over there that I am fine with any admin implementing and logging of general sanctions from that ANI thread - no need to await further input from me, nor to drag out further due to my internet access issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Note

• There is no content dispute. I would like to add a general observation to this discussion. As I am not an admin, I have had time for the luxury of reviewing hundreds of edits to this article over the period of 13 April until 19 April, when page protection was applied. I could not find any evidence of an actual content dispute. I found NO examples of contentious or disruptive editing (other than some unrepeated vandalism). Even the edit summaries were shockingly free of snark or argument. Nearly every single edit seemed a consensual improvement to the article. I did not find a single case of an editor -- not even the IP editor who tried to add Infowars as a source -- not one editor repeatedly tried to insert material that had been rejected by other editors. No particular section was ever repeatedly worked over by a editor or group of editors in apparent opposition to another editor or group of editors. Not one single time (with one exception). The last 5 edits not made by an admin are the single edit war I found, in which an IP and a confirmed editor flirted with (but did not violate) 3RR. In general, I must congratulate every single editor of this article, as I find it to be a sterling example of exactly how WP is supposed to work. I'm afraid I must conclude that the page protection was premature, and inappropriate for this instance. (That'll be 0.02USD, please.) Eaglizard (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Close this out?

@TParis:, @JzG: can we move on this and remove the page protection? General sanctions for 60 days, escalating blocks and 1RR restrictions seem to have consensus. I'd opt for no protection as semi-protection has some objections raised by IP contributors, and it can always be added. If there is more IP issues, edit warring can be handled with progressive blocks. If IP hopping becomes an issue, then raise to semi-protection. --DHeyward (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

All it takes is an uninvolved administrator to close it out. I proposed the sanctions so I'm on shaky ground. Not really involved, but debatable.--v/r - TP 05:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In my reading of the above, I see no objections to general sanctions as suggested, the only objections were to semi-protection. With that said, I'll work on formally implementing this at the article and on WP:GS. I haven't been involved in this discussion or the article before this point so I should be considered uninvolved. -- Atama頭 23:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I made an entry at WP:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, I added a log here for people to log offenders and remedies, I created a template on the article talk page, and closed the above. I think this is all that's needed, please message me if I left anything out or otherwise messed something up. -- Atama頭 00:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is one thing I forgot to do... Remove page protection. I've now done so at the article. -- Atama頭 01:55, 24 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:Mosfetfaser

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:Mosfetfaser

Quite like the "big phoney" guy in the Family Guy episode The Kiss Seen Around the World, this user is using his talk space to bring up how I misused Wikipedia over 2 years ago, titling this section as a direct attack on me. He has reverted when I deleted it and warned him over ANI, only for him to have the bare-faced cheek to say I am edit-warring. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I will allow your edit history to speak for itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Almightey_Drill . Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people saw what I did two years ago. It's gone now. Move on. Why does it affect you? Are you any better abusing your user talk to attack another user and do it again despite warnings? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's hilarious your witch hunt that's two years late: I have 25 deleted edits in 5,800 edits, you have 14 in 780. Your ratio is MUCH worse than mine. Your crusade against me is nothing more than not liking one disambiguating word "also" that I put into an article, and you have not been at all WP:CIVIL about it. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I must be thoroughly terrible, I have over 2,600 deleted edits out of 16,200 or so. I didn't know that's how we judged editors around here, I am ashamed.

@Mosfetfaser: To call someone a vandal for an edit they made more than two years ago is a baseless personal attack, and a pretty serious one. I see that you have chosen to remove it which was proper. Don't put it back. -- Atama頭 22:34, 22 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.

Phyllis Baldino

([36]) So I have a guy over on this article removing what seems like validly sourced information, I asked him on his talk page what his motive was (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALinguini17&action=history only one version of the page) and he replies with an edit summary (it's in the report title's diff) saying he's the subject of the article.

Anyone care to lend a hand on the matter? MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

He'll be a she, then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem here that needs administrative attention; discussing the issue (on the article's talkpage or on Linguini17's talkpage) is the way forward. At present, you're skirting 3RR yourself (this is a content dispute; you aren't reverting vandalism or BLP violations), so you really need to take it to the talkpages. I also note that Linguini17 hasn't removed the text again since your last edit. If you can't strike up a conversation about the disputed material than it's dispute resolution, not ANI, that should be your next port of call. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Good thing I don't generally do content then huh? Heh. Thanks guys, it just generally shook me that it was the subject of the article that I was dealing with, thankfully she seems co-operative. I was more than aware we both had 3RR having mentioned it on Linguini's talk (under the 'problem' wikilink) and I was planning to point it out and mention in this that she'd broken 3RR if she did a fourth. Thankfully she seems fairly smart. If there's nothing else of concern I believe the report can be closed. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 11:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

She also says she created the article but it was actually created by a different user account. So, I would take the statement that Linguini17 is Phyllis Baldino with a grain of salt. Weigh the edits based on their merits, not a claim that the editor is the subject of the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Recurrent violation of Civility policy by Jytdog

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.

This is not a matter to be resolved at this noticeboard, because there is no concise synopsis with diffs showing any sort of behavior that would require an immediate block. Please try WP:RFC/U instead if you want to have a lengthy discussion about an editor, if you can meet the requirements. It looks like these specific complaints are baseless, and that if this trajectory continues, the complaining party might himself be subject to a sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Incident report, by LeoRomero (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to discuss Jytdog's behavior on his User Page, but he deleted my post (diff), refused to discuss, and invoked WP:SHUN. This was the text of my request for discussion:

Civility

I agree with you when you say on your User Page that Civility "is crucial for successful interactions among editors trying to write articles ... we have to work together - we have to see and acknowledge each other - to get anything good done ... civility is all about behavior -- it has nothing to do with who you are or what you believe; what matters is what you write, and how you write it. Civility is what makes this ultimate democratic space possible ... The best interactions are characterized by competence and civility ... Of the two, only one is a pillar. Civility. If editors work in a spirit that acknowledges the other's validity and one's own limitedness - if they assume good faith - a consensus can be reached, eventually. Take civility away, and there is no chance."

But I disagree with how you practice what you preach. I refer you to the Wikipedia Policy Page on Civility (shortcut WP:NICE). "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Among other things, WP:NICE says: "Try not to get too intense", " Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy", "Be calm", "don't make snide comments", "don't make personal remarks about editors", "don't be aggressive", "no personal attacks", no "rudeness, insults, name-calling", no "belittling a fellow editor".

I quote back to you verbatim et literatim some recent remarks you'd made to me and to other editors (f.e A1candidate, Khimaris, Nigelj, TimidGuy), not only on our User Talk Pages, but also on the Talk Pages of Articles, where you yourself said they don't belong (diff). I'm certain that if I dig deeper I will find many more examples, but I think these suffice to illustrate my point (I was going to organize them according to the nature of their incivility, but there are so many (38) of them that I had to resort to mere alphabetization): 'Again, you seem very committed to not actually discussing things... strange'; 'because i run out of patience with your behavior'; 'bizarre to me'; 'create nothing but misery for everyone involved'; 'Do you see that?'; 'don't get yourself all worked up'; 'don't torment editors who are following those policies'; 'filled with mountains of bullshit'; 'I have neither time nor desire to pander to your ego here'; 'If you want to learn, ask, don't argue - ask and listen'; 'It is as foolish as'; 'just a big waste of time (except perhaps for satisfying your ego)'; 'makes you look less than credible'; 'Maybe this is some kind of sport for you'; 'not a happy sign to me of things to come should you choose to continue working on WP'; 'profoundly un-Wikipedian behavior'; 'Running to no less than two drama boards'; 'slow down and breathe'; 'So blech'; 'that is a patience-trying request'; 'that it is your idea - a newbie's idea'; 'the issue is so trivial that it is not worth trying to take up the community's time with'; 'there is a strange inability to read going around'; 'umm'; 'you appear to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Wikipedia mission'; 'you are going to be miserable here'; 'You are not talking, you are arguing in a legalistic manner.'; 'you are not working toward the best interest of the encyclopedia'; 'you are showing that you understand none of this'; 'you can hear me, or not! your call, naturally. good luck! '; 'you consciously have taken a stance that you aware is outside the consensus'; 'You don't seem to be aware'; 'you have an ax to grind'; 'you need to be careful to aim that energy where it can be productive'; 'You should know by now'; 'you should know that you pick your battles; good judgement is essential'; 'Your intensity and urgency are making it difficult to have a rational conversation. Can you even see it? Where is that coming from?'

I would like to discuss with you here why you think that these comments of yours meet Wikipedia's Civility requirements. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This is the second complaint about an editor that LeoRomero has filed here in the last few days (it was me being complained about before). This looks spurious too. Jytdog has a personally engaged style which I think many newbies and frazzled editors find very welcome. Even from the carefully cherry-picked fragments above I see nothing offensive, but rather some on-point plain speaking: constructive criticism is not uncivil. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• LeoRomero, I don't see any mention of "troll" in the diff you gave - and if you're going to make such accusations, you need to provide actual evidence. What I see is your posting a lengthy and detailed critique of another poster on their talk page, and that poster opining that it was over the top, archiving it, and telling you they're not interested - and they're perfectly entitled to do that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• If this is Jtydog at his worst, I'd like to hire him to come and lead group therapy sessions for people with profound social anxiety. Looking over the articles over which the discussion occurred, I see a pretty tenacious effort by some there to insert material that is clearly promotional/ advocacy in nature. I see this behavior as a much more appropriate topic for discussion on this board than Jytdog's comments, which are sometimes pretty direct but well with in the bounds of civil discussion. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I acknowledge I can be too harsh sometimes, and I am generally blunt. However, OP is fairly new and is still learning how things work here and has a legalistic communication and behavioral style that I find off-putting (I own that). Clearly the OP and I are having communication/style differences, so after his posting on my Talk page, which I did not find to be an authentic request to discuss anything, I archived it (I didn't delete it) and I suggested we simply mutually WP:SHUN, which he misunderstood, and reacted again in a legalistic way with this post. I do hope he gets his feet down and finds a way to be a productive member of the community. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• There really is nothing to discuss here. It is cruel to get eager wiki-villagers excited by a new complaint but then force us to put away our torches and pitchforks. Some of the quotations are a bit brusque or perhaps even impolite, but there's nothing that even approaches a personal attack. I can't understand what brought on this complaint, and I would suggest the complainant consider a mentorship program. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for participating in this discussion guys. Just one request: when you post on this thread, could you please ping me by including my user ID [[User:LeoRomero|LeoRomero]] in your comments? Here are my replies to the comments above:
  • Alexbrn: (1) Filing that complain against you on this Board was a rookie mistake. I thought I had already acknowledged that in my edit explanation when I deleted my post from your User Page a coupla days ago, but upon checking it just now, I saw that the comments were still there. I struck out my comments, and included my apology in the edit explanation. I really am sorry about that. (2) I did not cherry pick the fragments, I copied and pasted from Jytdog comments that I just stumbled upon. As I noted above, I am certain that I'd find many more examples were I to actually research. (3) When you said that that you found nothing offensive in Jytdog's remarks, you referred to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade, which is just an essay, countered by this other essay: Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. My complaint is based on WP:NICE – a policy “pillar” - and I hope we can focus on that. (4) Constructive criticism is civil by definition, but Jytdog has not been engaged in that – not with me anyway. Unlike yours (example diff), Jytdog's comments to me have been 100% negative – nothing positive, no suggestions to improve (unless we count “slow down and breathe”, which is as helpful as screaming “Don't Panic!” in the middle of a firefight). gotta run, will respond to the others soon as I can – Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee : (1) really no need to lecture me on the need to provide proof, that's kinda condescending. (2) You're giving me contradictory advice: you say that I ought to give proof ("if you're going to make such accusations, you need to provide actual evidence"), but also say that I oughtn't (“your posting a lengthy and detailed critique" - it was the proof that made it lengthy and detailed). (3) You assume, incorrectly, that I have a problem with Jytdog's deleting his remarks and not wanting to have a discussion with me about his behavior on his page. I have no problem with that at all, and I respected his wishes. (4) I felt that Jytdog called me a troll when he posted a link on my page to WP:SHUN, the first line of which reads "We all know not to feed the trolls." That's the second time he used the word "troll" in reference to me. But on second thought, I may have overreacted, and ought to give him the benefit of the doubt that that was not his intent, so I deleted the troll reference from this complaint. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Formerly 98: (1) Why do you think it matters to this discussion that some of Jytdog's comments were directed at people who were trying “to insert material that is clearly promotional/ advocacy in nature”? (2) If by “some” you include me, and my “tenacious effort” to include the external links to UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center and its free guided meditations in the Articles Mindfulness meditation and Mindfulness-based stress reduction, I invite you to join the discussion about that here. (3) Please let me know where you find in WP:NICE support for your opinion that the examples of Jytdog's comments I quoted above are “well with in the bounds of civil discussion”. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Jytdog: What do you mean by the word “legalistic” and how am I being that? I haven't found any WP policy doc that mentions “legalistic” or “legalism”, but I did find these two essays that do include them: Wikifinagling and Wikilawyering. Both essays abjure “Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles”, “Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express”; “Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions”. So do I. (2) Re your statement that you didn't find my post on your Talk Page “to be an authentic request to discuss anything”, I asked this of you at least once before (the first time you implied that I am a troll (diff)): please assume good faith. Had you done that, maybe I wouldn't have had to file this complaint. (3) I concede that I may have misunderstood your intent when you posted WP:SHUN on my wall, even though it was the second time you associated me with trolling, so I removed the troll reference from this complaint. (4) Please pardon my being ESL and ATL, but what does “gets his feet down” mean? I'm guessing it's not a compliment. (5) Re your hope that I find “a way to be a productive member of the community” that's yet another good example of your recurrent violation of Civility policy – both its spirit and its letter. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by the word “legalistic” and how am I being that? I haven't found any WP policy doc that mentions “legalistic” or “legalism” ← brain explodes from irony overload. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • NinjaRobotPirate: When you say “Some of the quotations are a bit brusque or perhaps even impolite”, you make a point for me. WP:NICE requires us to be polite (the word occurs four times in the current version). - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @LeoRomero: AN/I is generally for situations that have spiraled out of control and require the attention of an administrator. Calm but exasperated messages are basically the norm here, and they do not require anything but voluntary disengagement, which Jytdog has already wisely suggested. The nuclear holocaust of f-bombs caused the editor who said it to get a warning; nothing you've presented here has even warranted that. If anything, Jytdog deserves a barnstar of civility if that's the worst you've been able to dig up. If you decide to stick around here, I think you're going to need a thicker skin and require less positive reinforcement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • NinjaRobotPirate: (1) I can't find any policy basis for your interpretation of AN/I. Could you cite your sources please? (2) Your “If you decide to stick around here, I think you're going to need a thicker skin and require less positive reinforcement” is a good example of a comment that does not meet Civility standards. (3) Since you brag on your User Page that you're into “outrage”, Civility is probably not your area of expertise, and I probably should not give your opinions on it too much weight. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @LeoRomero: Jytdog has already disengaged from you, so I strongly suggest you do the same and drop the stick - you are not going to get any admin action against Jytdog here, and continuing to push this could start to look like harassment and backfire on you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Boing! said Zebedee: (1) I, too, disengaged from Jytdog. Had I not had to file this complaint - which I did based on my understanding of WP policies on Disputes - I wouldn't be engaging with him at all. (2) I'm not holding a stick, and don't think such violent metaphors belong here. (3) Are you an Admin speaking on behalf of Admins? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        • @LeoRomero: "Violent metaphors" - LOL! You really do need to stop over-reacting, you know! And as others have said, you'll need a thicker skin if you're to have a successful and enjoyable time here (and if you think that's an uncivil comment, well you need a thicker skin...). As for whether I am an admin, I am actually a retired admin (and I have a lot of experience of this noticeboard), but there's no requirement to be an admin to offer advice here - and I can assure you you will not get any admin action taken against Jytdog on this. Now, whether you listen to what people are saying here, or continue to not get it, is really up to you - I've offered all the help I'm going to, so I'll take my leave now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        • The "violent metaphor" is referring to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please also be cautious of WP:CANVASS... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Other users are being approached to participate in this thread. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The longer this thread goes on, the greater the chance that Leo's own behavior will be scrutinized. I would advise Leo to consider that. He's done nothing but give evidence toward his own trial. I would say that he should stop digging, but he probably doesn't even realize that he's in a hole, and, indeed, seems to enjoy this kind of drama ("I'm actually having fun, seeing how this goes; never filed a complaint vs fellow contributors before." in his previous frivolous complaint). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:11, 24 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:Oglesruins

Oglesruins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across the editor above when an edit war at the article Mexico got them blocked 27 days ago. I noticed today (and reverted) more additions to the same page. The "English" used is unintelligible. i.e "The country finally achieved that his political independence was recognized for.." and "They were lacking national identity and were not understanding they nor were interested..." I think we have a CiR native language problem. So I looked at the editors history and noticed they are blanking things etc... I think we have a classic case of WP:NOTHERE in a few ways. There is no attempt at communication with others over the concerns raised on there talk page or edit summaries explaining anything. They are editwaring over edits like this that add odd English. They are also blanking things as seen here. There are many many edits that have to be reviewed. What is the best course of action here? Do we need someone that speaks Spanish to try to communicate or what? -- Moxy (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked into some of this editor's recent edits and some were good, and the English is not always as bad as that. However, at Museo del Concorde the editor is determined not to have our article reflect the fact the museum has closed, and one of their few edit summaries suggests they take it personally: "not be envious...". Also at Querétaro F.C., one of the diffs given by the O.P. above, the editor is not only blanking the list of notable players but reinstating an unclear lede that I sorted out. I dropped a note on their talk page and so has another editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll block this editor if we see any more edits like this, but there's no reason to block right at the moment. I definitely agree that this is a WP:CIR situation. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see they have reverted me again at Museo del Concorde. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked, and instead of leaving {{uw-block}}, I copy/pasted the Spanish equivalent, Plantilla:Aviso bloqueado, along with a short message in the least-bad Spanish I could write. Note that it's pointless to advise this user to edit es:wp, due to an indefinite block there as a sock of Covervisit, whose few edits here (in 2007 and 2008) were a mix of vandalism reversion and the stuff that's gotten him blocked here just now. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope we can get through to him. I had seen the block notice on es. but the two covervisit accounts are unattached, and the one here seems from the small sample to have much better English than Oglesruins. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What to do about this?

A new editor's sole edit here is polyproblematic in an area that is under Arbcom guidance (on ISKON). Someone like to address it? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You should probably (only) warn the user about his mistake, per WP:BITE, but still keep an eye out, see if he learns from his mistake, but the addition of a 2 on his username makes me have a feeling he is a sock puppet (although I am not calling him a sock puppet Per WP:AGF, just mentioning that it seems suspicious). Cheers! Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Er, yeah, but warn about the ELspamming of what is apparently his own website; or about choosing a username to match that website; or about linking to what is apparently a massively slanderous attack/gossip/rumour/victims' self-help page (one might suppose in lieu of direct BLP violations); or about what, exactly? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The username doesn't seem too bad (and I tend to be a little strict about them). If the username was actually "Breaking-free.info" that would be one thing (that is prohibited explicitly in WP:CORPNAME as a URL username) but Breaking-free 2 is at least not a direct match for either the site name or the organization name (which is called "Breaking Free"). To me adding the "2" to the name is just enough to distinguish it and suggests it's not a role account (per WP:ISU). And it does make the COI more obvious so it's helpful in a sense. That's just my opinion. However, the linkspam, COI, and POV in that edit (I don't think BLP applies to someone who died in 1977) are all pretty bad. My suggestion would be to at least warn the person about COI and spam (WP:PSCOI may be particularly helpful for that). -- Atama頭 21:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Many other people (some living) are accused on the website, not just the one dead one. I'm sure that unchecked the same links will show up on the articles about them too. (Ok, maybe that's not exactly a GF assumption, but ...) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If other links show up we might want to consider a blacklist entry for the site. -- Atama頭 16:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Jackson High School (Jackson, Michigan) and JacksonViking

Despite numerous requests to discuss matters on the article talk page posted to his user page from more than one editor, this editor keeps reinserting content I have removed with what I feel is a legit explanation, including referring to my edits as vandalism. This is a content dispute, but WP:BURDEN does fall on him to justify his reinsertion. At least the BLP violations have been toned down. I would like to resolve this dispute amicably, but if the guy won't talk, what's a boy to do? John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC) :And I am sorry, I meant to post this to the EW noticeboard, which I shall do forthwith. John from Idegon (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that you blank this, then. Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed my mind. I have never used the EW noticeboard and its reporting template is not really suitable for the slow edit war going on here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: When reporting someone on this noticeboard, it is required that you leave them notice, as it says at the top of this board. You have not done so. -- Atama頭 02:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: JacksonViking left a message on John from Idegon's user talk page to discuss the article. This is an improvement over the persistent edit war. It does unfortunately show some ownership mentality ("I apologize for my editing of MY school's wikipedia page"). But it's better than no communication at all. The discussion could continue on that user talk page (if that brings a peaceful resolution then so be it) though it would be preferable at the article talk page where other editors working on the article can see what issues are being debated, and could also participate in the discussion. -- Atama頭 15:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies over the not leaving notice. I was editing at work and got called away and never got back. And since he is now sorta kinda trying to engage, that is all I need here. Feel free to close this. John from Idegon (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It happens, no worries. As I said, JacksonViking is showing some problematic signs even when communicating with you so if this escalates or you can't get through to the editor leave a note here if this thread isn't archived yet. Engaging you in discussion is a good first step but it doesn't necessarily mean the problem is resolved. -- Atama頭 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My nature is to expect the best from people so it doesn't surprise me that I requested closure here prematurely. An IP, which geolocates to Jackson, Michigan (50.201.56.11), reinstated the disputed content yet again. I think a peek at said IP's talk page might be illuminating. It appears that some WP:DUCK may be going on here and I am going to ask you erstwhile folks to carry on whatever you deem as appropriate. I will be posting a request at the school project to get some eyes on this page and maybe yet another editor can take a crack at it. There have been some more good NPOV edits from some editors and I hope the trend continues. It is beginning to piss me off enough that I am going to leave it alone for a while. Thanks for your help. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, this is practically screaming WP:COI. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 13:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that the IP is the same editor, but logged-out. Looking at JacksonViking's contributions, I don't see this person as completely disruptive. They have some good edits. Even these proposed insertions into the Jackson High School article have some merit; not all of it is unsourced (some are sourced to a local news organization) and some of the info could possibly be useful for expanding the article. The problems I see are an ownership mentality (caused by or complicated by a COI) and an unwillingness to discuss matters on the article talk page. I think it would be mutually beneficial if JacksonViking was willing to talk about the information they want to add, to trim out the fluff from the substance. But they haven't been willing to do that; while the editor hasn't been completely uncommunicative, that communication hasn't included any attempts to discuss content, just to either apologize to one editor for a misunderstanding, or to give a sarcastic apology which challenged reverting of their additions. Aside from what little we see in edit summaries, that is the extent of this editor's communication efforts. -- Atama頭 16:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about the editor, Atama, but not about the edits. It's an urban school and there will be some violence in its history. It is my feeling, supported by the school article guidelines that if the incidents in question were not noted otside the immediate area, they do not belong in the article. some, such as the teacher losing his job after a drunk driving conviction, do not belong at all. That being said, if anyone would like to approach him and tell him I am not his enemy I would be happy to try to work with him in improving what he edits. the most disruptive thing he did frankly was the repeated insertion of the horribly formatted listing of clubs. John from Idegon (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not the controversy section, but some of the other information like the school newspaper, its rival, etc. The news story about the homecoming king was probably just fluff, but it was sourced at least. Some of that info might be useful. Most of it isn't, though. -- Atama頭 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

The current RfC on bird article names is seeing a recent influx of SPAs, and accusations of puppetry are flying. In the latter part of this section, some rather concrete evidence of this has been given. At this time, I am attempting to discuss this canvassing with the editor in question, and I do not wish to discuss his conduct here. Rather, I am hoping that an uninvolved admin will monitor the discussion and deal with these new editors as he or she feels is appropriate. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Or just go ahead and close the RFC? It's probably time. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Put the RfC out of its misery, add the issue to WP:PERENNIAL, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have asked there if the people involved in the discussion would accept my close if I were to close. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request

Can someone fulfil this edit request? Thanks — lfdder 20:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This has now been declined w/ the excuse that there isn't a consensus for removing it. There's not any consensus for keeping it in the first place, but we don't mention that. Like I've said there, not only is Pigsonthewings wrong on technical grounds, but he and his enablers are, in essence, abusing their privileges as template editors. — lfdder 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

217.169.221.165's continual disruptive editing via removal of data from Srđa Popović

User 217.169.221.165 has been continually removing sourced material from Srđa Popović despite several warnings to cease such activity.Zvonko (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a week. If the activity resumes when the block wears off, please file a report at WP:AIV or request page protection at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Dolphin slaughter propaganda

Not sure if clueless, spamming, or trolling, but utterly baseless complaint. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:22, 25 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. I just noticed that the wiki site about Taiji is a pure pro dolphin slaughter propaganda most obviously written by people in that city of Japan who have a vested interest in seeing the killings keep on. For expl the allegations concerning the no mercury poisoning are faulse , as the contain of mercury is known to be over 2000 PPP, when the max acceptable level should be of 0,4 PPP. The page is here: Talk:Taiji,_Wakayama I think that the page should be supervised as it deliberately try to bagatelised the massacre of dolphins going on in that city and who was unveiled to the world for the first time in 2009, in the documentary known as "The Cove". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.215.111.86 (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Uh, no. The article is not at all a mess, and there is nothing on the talk page that is concerning. Also, you have made no attempts to resolve anything there, so please do not come here first unless you are at an impasse. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:13, 25 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.

Possible edit war on Sweden Democrats

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

---

Some sort of administrator intervention could be helpful on the Sweden Democrats article, which is currently subject to something of an edit war. Notable is I like the truth's at least 10 ([37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]) edits to the article's lead section, replacing the edits of several different other editors. Edit summaries are being used to debate the issue rather than the talk page. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 20:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:I like the truth has been reported by User:RJFF at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• The WP:SPA I like the truth (talk · contribs) was created a week ago, apparently for the sole purpose of POV-pushing and edit warring on Sweden Democrats. They revert with edit summaries that propose the party's self-description on their webpage as a reliable source. Their argument (in edit summaries only; they have never posted on article talk) can be summarized as follows:

a) the academic source, Rydgren, is too old (2006) and Rydgren is "biased academic left" anyway;

b) the party's self-description is a better source for their ideology; and

c) if the party's self-description won't do, then the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet is a third-party source and trumps Rydgren because it's newer (2011).

Obviously a) and b) run counter to Wikipedia's reliable sources policies, and SwedishPenguin has dealt with c) efficiently on I like the truth's own talkpage, pointing out: "You pointed to an SvD article as a third-party source, but the article was merely a report concerning how the party is going to refer to itself. Therefore we're still talking about how the party defines itself, rather than how academic third-party sources describe the party's ideology based on their policies and ideas". This was a couple of days ago and has got no response, nor led I like the truth's edit warring to slow down any. Note that the user has been warned about edit warring, not only recently by RJFF, but also on April 18 by Iselilja. I've blocked the account indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE and for being a disruption-only account.

Note that I'm quite ready to defer to any admin who's prepared to give them a second chance in the event that they post a convincing unblock request. Indefinite is not you-know-what. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

Update. Er… yeah. I guess the bit about deferring to the reviewing admin and so on is moot now. The user has just posted an unblock request, at least technically, and has had it, well, declined.[47] Bishonen | talk 00:09, 25 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:Zeshan Mahmood

User:Zeshan Mahmood appeared four days ago. His editing seems to be focused on the subcontinent, with a particular interest in Kashmir. While some edits seem to be uncontroversial and constructive, eg [48], some are bit more controversial and some are downright unhelpful ([49] [50] [51]). In addition, the user has created a string of pages ([52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]), many of which have been either speedy deleted, deleted, or nominated for deletion on grounds of non-notability, copyright violations or duplicating other pages. There have been many template notices placed on the user talk page, as well as a couple of more personal notices asking the user to look into community standards, but there has been no response and no perceptible change in behaviour. I think this editor is editing in good faith, but needs to be guided. At the moment, he's not listening.

My apologies if this is premature or should have been taken to another forum first. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Kitsada69 repeatedly removing speedies and PRODBLPs from articles s/he has created

Kitsada69 (talk · contribs) has been told, repeatedly, not to remove PRODBLPs, speedy-delete nominations, and unresolved maintenance tags from articles s/he has created, and has now done it again: here. There has been no response to any comments on their user talk page - possibly they aren't reading it. A short block might draw this to their attention and persuade them to stop messing around. PamD 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, indefinitely until they respond - not so much because of the problems you mention, which I think would have warranted at least a short block, but due to the creation of 5 pages such as User talk:182.52.164.90 - none of the IPs are actually Cox Communications IPs and none are blocked. They all edited 2014 Asian Women's Club Volleyball Championship. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

He/she responded by blanking their talk page. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Panel of three administrators requested for closure of Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested Move 8

Not only has the move request itself (which is No. 8 for this particular page) caused disruption but the subsequent edit warring and wheel warring over the closure was not a great deed either. Guy has now closed the move discussion again and suggested a moratorium for any new RMs at this article for one month. As a totally uninvolved admin I cannot find any consensus in this ANI discussion to leave it open. I also endorse Guy's reasoning for the final RM closure and the proposed moratorium. Any further reopening of the previous discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested Move 8 will be met with a warning and ultimately a block for disruptive and pointy editing.

In other news it's trout fishing season. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

A proposal has been made at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested Move 8 to change the name of the article. The name of this article is contentious, with a previous move request resulting in a long discussion and move review. The request has already received strong responses after being posted for only one hour. To reduce any potential problems, I am requesting a panel of three entirely neutral and uninvolved administrators to close the request after the discussion has ended (in seven days). Please volunteer here should you be interested. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone seems to be having a hard time understanding the word "no". It only needs one admin to close it, the request is plainly disruptive. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has used the word 'no' yet with regards to this request. I attempted to contact you through your talk page (in a nice way) and you replied with 'Talk to the hand.' This discussion is clearly contentious, and, as such, it is only appropriate that it is closed neutrally and formally. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I closed that discussion neutrally and formally, per common sense and IAR. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As a point of order, so did I, but the IP that started this discussion reverted the close. I think it may be time to reach for the WP:TROUT. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You did? What a Guy-thing to do. Good for you. Drmies (husband of Mrs. Drmies) 22:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A request should not be closed whilst discussion is still ongoing and there is decent support for both sides of the argument. A neutral close means to wait for users to comment and then to analyse those arguments neutrally and without any bias. Closing a move request after two hours is simply insufficient. I have reverted your close accordingly. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• And I've rolled you back accordingly, and will not hesitate to do so again. Consider this (<--this) a warning for disruptive editing. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I reviewed this IP's previous contributions, and they amount to a massive pile of wheedling disruptive bullshit. I have blocked it for a week. Look at talk:Pablo Casals. Seriously, this person is just yanking our collective chain. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• That dancing around is kind of funny on the Casals talk page: "this person, who is now back home under their regular IP, confirms that that person was not this person, but the other person was". Yes, good call--thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, now Anthonyhcole, who earlier opposed this "sexist, misogynist shit", has undone the close. Anthony, I love you like a brother/sister, but this is a complete timesink; good luck with it. Surely you should know that there's more broken pieces to pick up a week from now. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I support blocking that guy. But please just let that discussion have its head. I want to know how fucked this place actually is. If you shut down the headline instances of obvious sexism like this with supervotes, are you going to follow User:Obiwankenobi around and stop him merging Category:American women writers into Categoty:American writers and all the other little cuteness he gets up to? Sorry, I'm not making myself as clear as I'd like. Mole-whacking, spot-fire-stomping isn't the solution, some kind of actual policy change is. (Don't ask me what.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I don't believe that's a reasonable basis for prolonging this discussion, and would prefer to see it left as having been closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Et tu? Sorry. I think we need to look at ourselves. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

My take is that there are, unfortunately, enough instances of naturally occurring bad behavior on the project without our unnecessarily adding to them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is naturally-occurring bad behaviour, supported by many editors in good standing who have free reign here, because there is nothing in en.Wikipedia policy about respecting the dignity of our subjects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I don't see how any policy we have could ever support such a title, so the only thing that would be uncovered is not "systemic sexism" in our policies, but rather the behavior of some of our colleagues--for whom we are making a nice spectacle here. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No policy opposes it. So we're left to local consensus with one side having to constantly argue IAR. See my response to NYB immediately above, and Wikipedia talk:BLP#Human dignity. (I support User:SlimVirgin's proposal - not sure if I mentioned that in the discussion.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the close, Anthony. It is clear from your comments here that your intended purpose is to foster disruptive drama. If you want to propose changes to policy, then propose changes at a village pump. Don't encourage a giant, disruptive waste of time in the name of WP:POINT. Resolute 23:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's clear at all, Resolute. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"I want to know how fucked this place actually is" is the statement that particularly damns you in my view. Your overall tenor and tone here, at that talk page and at Jimbo's talk page makes it patently clear that you are not asking for the discussion to remain open because of a desire to honestly resolve this debate. You seem determined to encourage and foster drama in the name of "proving" the existence of sexism. In short, you are basically arguing against your own stated position simply to try and keep this going. That is disruptive behaviour and IMNSHO, not a valid excuse to keep this RM open. Resolute 23:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if I had to bet on it, I'd bet the pro "wife of" team would loose that one. But I'm not sure, and I'd have liked to know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's extremely disruptive, and very much the same behavior that caused editors to be admonished etc. in the previous Manning dispute. That said, the RM should not be closed prematurely. Arkon (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

we have, I would estimate more than 200 other articles where people are disambiguated based on their relationships with others (wife, husband, sister, mother, daughter, etc), and I've never heard a complaint. In other cases we call them murderers or rapists or other unsavory things, as if the act of killing someone DEFINED that person, but we go ahead and dab on that when necessary because our main goal is to serve the reader. Anyway, I'd suggest we let the discussion run it's course, a year ago there were a fair number of people who supported the original title, which had remained per consensus for several years, and the IP has made a compelling policy-based case. It's a unique situation, in the last move request I proposed a great many other disambiguations but few took me up on them. I also recently voted for simply Sarah Brown per iaR but everyone else wanted to hew to policy on Primarytopic. If were to follow sources, of course, wife is the most frequently used dab for her, and Sarah Jane is never used. Ever.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's over, Obi. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidently not, as Obi has chosen to re-revert the closure. I suppose I'll just file actions like that away for future reference at the inevitable RFArb. Resolute 23:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Classic. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I request consensus here to reinstate the speedy-close of the move request and leave it that way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• strong oppose what is the matter with you people? The last move a year ago had at least 12 or maybe more editors supporting the original title by my recollection. This one has garnered 4 support votes within an hour of opening. Are you afraid consensus won't be with you? I see no reason to close a well reasoned and argued move request which was based on a very careful reading of policy, and must point out that the current title is in violation of every single titling policy except IAR. If you shut this down this is a small crew of admins ganging up and enforcing their version of consensus, which is not what the mop is for.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK. I'm persuaded by the above. Support. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. I would also note that the Anon did get their three admins to close the discussion. Guy, Drmies and myself. Resolute 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I fail to understand why the discussion has been allowed to be reopened repeatedly by individuals involved in the discussion. Each admin commenting here has agreed with Drmies' original (and subsequent) close. The original IP requested a panel of three uninvolved admins to close; regardless of the merit of the request that number has been well surpassed. If I wasn't logging off in short order I would re-close it myself. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Continued reversion of the close is WP:POINTy in the extreme. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  Why did you block the IP (131.111.185.66‎)who started the RM? Your stated reason is disruptive editing, but I see no diff to such, and a look at the editing history shows me no such disruption? Arkon (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  Reverting the close is considered disruptive editing. I agree with the block, though perhaps JzG could have let someone else implement the block if just to avoid the appearance of WP:INVOLVED. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  I could possibly go along with that if the other people (person?) who reverted the close was similarly blocked. It would be wrong, but at least consistent. This looks very very retaliatory. Arkon (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not involved, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, participated in any of these discussions. My block of the IP is based on a pattern of disruptive behaviour going back months, with endless querulous demands for things that are not going to happen. Also I noted it here for independent review, which is best practice. I did not block the other person reverting closure because (a) they did not also start the thread and (b) they have a lot more history of actually productive collaboration, so it's not an open and shut case. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support- I don't need to see anymore to know of the systematic bias here, it's pretty plain. Besides, why make admins who have so much to do work harder just to see who is and who isn't going to support this silliness. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Drmies's close. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Let it run, as I said on the talk page there I wouldn't have done any reverting myself, but hey, let's see just how far down the rabbit hole we can go here. Bronies, Spring breakers, Nickelback fans, I'm sure there's plenty of Wikipedia's "bro" constituency that haven't had time to weigh in yet. Tarc (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hoping to catch editors on the other side of a discussion behaving badly is not a reasonable reason for prolonging that discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh I don't think they'll behave badly, as in NPA/disruptive/etc...types of things. I just think they'll make awkward "she's just his wife" votes. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Except that reality shows no such votes. I'm drowning in all the AGF over here. Arkon (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• There has to be a better way to instruct editors on some of the institutional problems here than hostility. Right? I mean, systematic bias isn't necessarily a purposeful problem. I do agree, however, that more needs to be done about systemic problems that derive from certain groups of editors who are (very)purposeful regarding certain biases. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reinstated the closure of the move request, as declined, per the consensus here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And Obi undid it - but I've reclosed. At this point letting it run is nothing more than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, what point is being made? That policy based arguments can be made to support the move? You guys need to let this run it's course and lay off the Right Great Wrongs (I swear there is a wikilink for that) mindset. Arkon (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You're thinking of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And the "point being made" is explicitly stated by Tarc here and here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What the hell kind of rationale is that? You are seriously basing your decision on the words of a user who in a similar situation not a year ago, did exactly what he is predicting others to do now? That's ridiculous. Oh, and his predictions, have of course not come to be (pesky reality). Arkon (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Leave this open despite it having been attempted to be closed two three multiple times so if it goes through I can report to the media how awful Wikipedia is" = "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point". I don't know what Tarc, or anyone else, did or didn't do not a year ago, I just know what he's saying his rationaile and intentions-if are now, and my own prediction is that the course of this RM is not likely to be constructive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose early closing. Letting the discussion run its course prevents the future objection that the option has not been given a fair hearing. bd2412 T 01:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Except, it did. There was already a very long RM/argument about this which resulted in the current title not very long ago. This is a case of a couple editors refusing to accept that outcome choosing to beat dead horses. Argumentum ad nauseam'. Resolute 03:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose early closing. Let the better policy based argument win. Also suggest trouting for all the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS up in here (thanks for the wikilink). Arkon (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTFORUM. It's great that people can use the Internet to discuss silly ideas, but if there is no policy to prevent this nonsense we'll have to invent one, and Wikipedia should not be used for social experiments to measure how many people will be sucked in by trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  What is the silly idea here? Move requests? Are those supporters of the move trolls? Help me out here. Arkon (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose early closing. This supervoting is outrageous. WP decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus is developed through discussion. This particular RM proposal is especially clearly written. IAR is a pillar, but applying it here is pure rationalization for WP:JDLI. You need to have good reason to invoke IAR, and you need to have consensus agreeing that IAR applies. You can't just apply it unilaterally because you think something is just plainly "wrong". Once you have it in your head that this is an example of sexism and misogyny, it's hard to see otherwise, I'm sure. But it really takes some cognitive dissonance to see it that way, and ignore the dozens of other similar examples of "wife of" and "husband of" that we have and not have an issue with that. If you're feeling strong emotions about this, you're probably missing something. We have very good policy and criteria for deciding titles. Let's follow their lead. --B2C 04:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think we are nearing the point where an uninvolved admin might want to start dropping warnings and blocks for those perpetuating this disruptive and POINTy RM. Resolute 05:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Please do not make personal attacks on other editors, which your assumptions (for that is, indeed, what they are - closing this mess was not related to sexism, one way or the other) regarding the motivations of those who have attempted to close this disussion are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • With comments like this, "You swooping in and whacking this mole will not address the systemic sexism. If this discussion results in a grossly sexist title, the next move is to address the underlying problem with a policy fix. "[58], the assumption that some have it in their head that the proposed title is an example of sexism is not unreasonable, nor is anything I said a personal attack. It wasn't even an attack, let alone a personal one. --B2C 06:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Once you have it in your head that this is an example of sexism and misogyny, it's hard to see otherwise, I'm sure. But it really takes some cognitive dissonance to see it that way is indeed a personal attack upon every admin who has attempted to close this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• This has become nothing more than a spectacle, no thanks to users from across the spectrum. Time to visit the fishmonger; there will be wet trout for a few people.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  And done. The only user who I didn't trout is the anon as he/she was already appropriately blocked for disruptive editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Enough already

I have closed it again based on (a) the fact that there is already very obviously not going to be a consensus for a move, (b) people can't even agree what it should be moved to and (c) we only just closed the previous discussion. Oh, and (d), we've had two or three uninvolved admins and a bloody arbitrator close it and people still keep wanting to throw in their two penn'orth. I suggest a moratorium on move discussions for one month, enforced by warning then block if necessary, and if that doesn't do it then after this number of discussions with people who lost re-opening the discussion every time, ArbCom clearly is the way to go. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User:Alex250P meatpuppetry attempts

Hello there. Recently there have been a rise in new discussions forming around articles in the scope of WP:EE. These were made in regards to challenging consensus made on a small amount of changes to infobox styles. Here is a talk page discussion started by User:Alex250P regarding the removal of birth and death dates from fictional character articles. In this post they reference a forum thread on the entertainment website Digital Spy. I only noticed this yesterday wondering where these new interested users came from. I tracked the thread down and here it is. In this thread a disgruntled User:Alex250p states:

"I've tried to start a debate on Wikipedia about it but if I'm honest I'm unsure. It's so annoying, I used to think they were great pieces of information - but it seems difficult to pass any sort of change with the control that few users have on them articles. If a few of us all messaged the individual, maybe something could happen about it?"

When other posters question how difficult this would be, User:Alex250p reassures "No there isn't really an admin or anything, if everybody has wikipedia profiles and we form some sort of debate on his talk page it could move somewhere?"

Another individual "Mattyboii1995" admits to holding a Wikipedia account and states: "Exactly, it just seemed pointless to have an argument with 1 loser who stays on Wikipedia all day, every day checking that the pages are just how he wants them. His name is 'AnenomeProjectors' if that's who you're thinking of." They are referring to administrator User:AnemoneProjectors. They also go on to offer PM's to other posters to target and change consensus. It could be possible that Alex250p also operates that account and more on Wikipedia itself.Rain the 1 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I find these accusations rather unjust. I can assure you I operate only the one account, and will be prepared to submit IP addresses/passwords, whatever it takes to prove this. Also, I never began the thread on Digital Spy, however I did feel that in order to create a serious talk then more people were need with actual Wiki profiles. Wikipedia is read by everybody, therefore if somebody feels strongly enough to create a thread on it, why not have their say on here? It's a perfectly democratic suggestion. I have not named any administrators in particular and would not go accusing people by name, this "Mattyboii1995" is not me, or a clone account of me and as I've said, will be willing to prove this. I've contributed to articles on Wikipedia for a number of years now, and recently I do feel that the community has changed in terms of discussing changes, and that it has become the word of a few rather than the majority. Is it so wrong to want a say? Alex250P (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alex250P: Please note that our canvassing policy prohibits what you did. You violated 3 of the 4 versions of canvassing. Campaigning by not neutrally asking people to participate, clearly you're asking them to have a particular action taken. Vote-stacking by asking people in an area that you know will support your point of view. Stealth canvassing by making these actions off of Wikipedia. I believe that you've done this in ignorance of policy, but know that if you do this sort of thing again, you can and will be blocked. Consensus is one of the basic foundations of Wikipedia, and attempts to circumvent consensus as you've done are strictly forbidden. -- Atama頭 23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Atama, with all due respect, I have to disagree. I have no vested interest in this; I just came along and happened to read it, and was disturbed by your belief that Wikipedia has the right to govern a user's off-wiki freedom of speech. What your interpretation of WP:CANVASS is doing is restricting a user's off-wiki behavior to what Wikipedia finds acceptable. I find that chilling, and completely inappropriate; a user account on Wikipedia does not compel an editor to reliquish his/her right to discuss Wikipedia freely and openly in other venues, and that includes "rallying the troops" if need be. My understanding of the canvassing policy is that it governs on-wiki behavior, and does not explicitly address off-wiki activity. Consequently, I would argue that Alex250p has violated no policy. On the other hand, if the consequences of that discussion come on-wiki, that's another story. --Drmargi (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you like it or not, Drmargi. It's our guideline. Read it, don't make assumptions.

"Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages."

That's a direct quote from the guideline. As I said before, there are 4 different kinds of prohibited canvassing defined by our guideline. The fourth kind, "stealth canvassing", is entirely concerned with an editor's off-wiki activities. Let's put it this way... What an editor does off-wiki makes no difference unless and until it affects Wikipedia. When you recruit people to come to Wikipedia to bolster your POV, that is affecting Wikipedia and circumventing consensus, and is disruptive in the process. That's why our guideline prohibits such practices. -- Atama頭 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"Rallying the troops" off-wiki also has another name: meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is seriously how insular Wikipedia has become, then I frankly give up trying to edit. Alex250P (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alex250P: Wikipedia didn't "become" this way. The guideline has been like this for years. The discussion that led to the guideline change can be seen here begun in June 2007. A stable version of the guideline (where people were no longer edit-warring about whether or not "stealth canvassing" should be included) is seen as early as August 2007, and it has been part of the guideline since. By the time you began editing Wikipedia (under this account, at least) the guideline had been in place for more than half a year. So the only thing that has changed about Wikipedia is your understanding of the project's guidelines. Don't assume because you were ignorant of our guidelines that they are new, they predate your own participation here and are the guidelines you've been subject to all along. -- Atama頭 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not referring explicitly to the guidelines, I'm talking about the fact that I'm being accused of having multiple accounts. Nobody has suggested a way in which I can prove that I don't. Innocent until proven guilty? Alex250P (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, It means that if you do not make a argument against it, then you will likely be blocked, I think we should open a SPI over this and end this thread. If we don't, Its ok too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Attack Dog (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not being accused of having multiple accounts. You are being accused of WP:CANVASSING offsite for the purpose of having other people sign up to support a position you hold - which is meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex250P, you don't have to prove anything. You've already admitted violating the canvassing guidelines, and you did so in such a way that I agree with Bushranger, it is close to if not actual meatpuppetry. (Meatpuppetry is asking someone else to do something on your behalf, I'm not 100% sure it applies here since you didn't tell anyone exactly what to do, but it's pretty close.) In any event, you violated our canvassing guideline and you've been warned not to do it again. So don't. You weren't aware of it before, but you are now, so consider this a warning that if you do it again you'll be blocked. Otherwise I don't know that there is anything else that requires this board's attention. (Happy Attack Dog, I don't think an SPI is necessary, if this is sockpuppetry then Alex250P went through the bizarre and unnecessary step of having sockpuppets not just here but on another site, I think that's a big stretch.) -- Atama頭 19:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Trout time

The people who are determined to rename Sarah Jane Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have split out the discussion of what title they might want to move it to from the many-times-closed move discussion no. 8 (because that's completely different from a move discussion obviously) and obviously that means they must revert any attempt to close the spun-out discussion because after all discussion is how consensus is achieved. Ignoring the fact that consensus is firmly against changing the article title at all right now. Seriously, I think it is time for the buggering about to stop and the blocking to start. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

yeah, given that a good number of even those opposed to the move suggested other titles, we should definitely quash any attempt at brainstorming new or creative or better titles for that article. Its best if the only google hit for SJB is wikipedia - it will help our rankings. Consensus and discussion should be halted whenever it makes us uncomfortable or whenever it appears editors are disobeying. They must be kept in line. Actually, I take that back, i think a post-forced-move-closure discussion of alternatives by interested parties is perfectly reasonable and violates nothing but perhaps a few bruised egos. How are we expected to develop alternative names while the moratorium on moves is in place? Discussion...-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So, apart from being sarcastic, you agree that continued discussion of the move after the discussion of the move was decided to be disruptive following so shortly after the previous disruptive attempt to move it, is disruptive, and you volunteer to be blocked, am I right? Guy (Help!) 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think there is nothing wrong with discussing other options for a move - its quite different from a formal move request which was and remains closed. It was explicitly suggested that we do so, in fact, pending formulation of a new move request. Since any new move request has been pushed out a month, until then i see no harm in brainstorming. Since this seems to be a topic of great interest to you why dont you join the discussion and contribute some creative alternative titles that wouldnt be considered disruptive?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it was suggested that you agree a proposed target before the next move request is filed. That does not mean "carry right on obsessing over moving this article". In fact, rather the opposite. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

do you have a good suggestion on how to arrive at an agreed upon proposed target amongst a small group of interested editors? I participated in the Chelsea manning move discussion and we spent a month collecting sources and preparing for that one (#2). Never once did anyone consider that disruptive. In fact, I think I was awarded a barnstar or two for helping lead that discussion. If it would make you more comfortable we could perhaps move the new titles brainstorming to a subpage, but I don't really see a need just yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

...hey guys, all arguing between each other does it entirely put off anyone else from any inclination to try to help out. See my essay WP:ANI Advice #16.--v/r - TP 21:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a great suggesiton. Wait a month and then raise it on the talk page. After a month. When the month moratorium is up. Then. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock requests category backlogged

Category:Requests for unblock appears to be unusually backlogged. I have been coming across requests that have not been attended to for several days. I'd appreciate if other admins would pitch in so that each blocked user gets a careful review of his or her request. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I looked at a couple. So that page is updated automatically? It seemed a bit slow--some Panda had already looked at one or two. And there are some complicated cases there. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• The number of open cases usually hovers between 20 - 40 in various stages of response. Username blocks with spam elements can remain on the list for up to 7 days as admins wait for a response from the blocked editor with regard to their understanding of COI. This is why the appearance of a large backlog on this list can be deceptive, there may be 30 unblock requests displayed but only 5 or 6 that aren't being handled in some way or another. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

After 3 days of waiting for responses to COIQ or similar, just close it as "procedural decline" - I was working on a template for that at one point the panda ₯’ 22:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved eyes please on a technical discussion gone wrong

Please can uninvolved admins cast an eye over the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Propose_new_subpage_for_Discussions_awaiting_closure?

What I thought was a fairly simple technical issue to facilitate non-admin closures of CFD discussions has met with a response from Jc37 (talk · contribs) which doesn't make sense to me. I have been accused[59] of "violating our policy on consensus", and warned that if this comes to ANI I face sanctions because Jc37 has "discovered/realised a wrinkle in all of this".

I honestly can't figure out what this is all about. But please could someone else assess it, and ask Jc37 to explain what they have discovered about me which might merit sanctions? If I truly am that far out of line, then the evidence should be presented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I - I'm not sure what to say here. This looks like a GIANT miscommunication with offense taken several times where none was intended. I think Jc37 acted a bit irrational and out of character. Can we hit a reset button here on this conversation between you two and try again? That seems like the best approach. All in all though, I don't see much for an admin or ANI to do here other than say 'yeah, that's odd'.--v/r - TP 21:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, TP. If others reckon no action needed, that's fine by me. I just needed more eyes on it, in case anyone reckoned I needed to change tack somehow. I'll see if anyone else wants to suggest anything other than your summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Checking back on my interactions with Jc37, this has odd echoes of an incident I had forgotten in July last year. Jc37 was doing some odd stuff after a CFD close which was unsuccssfullly challenged by 2 other editors. I belatedly saw what was happening and discussed it with Jc37 on my talk and on JC37's talk page. When the discussion didn't produce a change of tack, I took it to AN/3RR wher Jc37 was warned for edit-warring after insisting on an RFC about a topic which was uncontroversial. I brought it to ANI, where no action was taken. The RFC on the matter showed unanimous support for the status quo ante.

There is a similar pattern here, of Jc37 taking strange unilateral actions, then demanding an RFC about something straightforward, and making all sorts of weird warnings to other editors (me alone in the current case, me and others in the previous one). Me and User:Fayenatic london involved in both episodes. So maybe not as out-of-character as TP and I had hoped :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We all have our moments of snapping. I've been guilty of it at least a half dozen to a dozen times. I just mean that my general impression of Jc37 is pretty good (as is my general impression of most people here).--v/r - TP 00:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocking

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 you please block TheRedPenOfDoom from editing Suzannah Lipscomb's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lw1982 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely. What is your complaint? Can you provide a diff (example) of what you object to and what policy you believe it is violating? You need to provide some evidence to back up a request like yours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Extended discussion is at User talk:Lw1982#Reliable sources. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) (not an administrator) 01:10, 26 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 MONGO, article Chad_Kellogg

I proposed a 1 sentence 1 source addition to this article [60], at [61]...please scroll down to the bottom section titled Proposed Controversy Section. My proposed addition is--

Outside Magazine revealed Kellogg used the "powerful steroid dexamethasone" for an Everest speedclimb attempt.[62]

User Mongo and apparently 1 other administrator have not permitted my addition, & will not discuss it, & will not wait for the opinions of others.

In that section[63], user Mongo responds "Everestrecords is apparently a single purpose account" This is obviously dishonest[64], he also states "Everestrecords wants to spit on the grave of this person...it's negative and petty and doesn't improve the article anyway." Untrue. The climber is controversial, Outside Magazine did major article recently on a negative issue (steroid use of Everest climbers), and the climber was reported in the article.

In the reason for user Mongo's most recent edit, he states [65] "walk away now or face an indefinite block". In a past edit [66] he sates "youre not able to see the light". In his earlier comment on 16:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [[67] he states "there is no reason for you to defame him with such a trivial issue", "Kellogg used one pill one time as a preventative not as an aid..so what!", "He's dead now...what's your point? You seem hell bent on only having the part about his use of the drug and fail to mention why he did...you misrepresent the full story".

I consider his comments about me to be personally attacking, attempts to intimidate, and attempts to provoke, and to show his intense bias. Also, is comments about the article are biased. The article is about a serious controversy, and the climber is named and reported on and quoted as having taken the steroid in the article. I'd be happy to add more text to my proposed addition to explain things as Mongo recommends, but I thought my 1 sentence addition was more appropriate due to being more brief.

The article as it is seems unbalanced. I twice added a POV template [68], user Mongo removed them within minutes, I believe the templates are supposed to remain until there is full consensus on the problem.

The article is mostly about his speed-climbing, claimed records, etc., and the Outside Magazine article did a paragraph on his Everest speed climbing. Again [[69]] 40th paragraph from the top.

If you could advise me on how to proceed with this matter I'd appreciate it

Everestrecords (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure....let's chat about where you called me a sociopath, a vandal, a monster on my talk page and where you have been blocked twice in the last 10 days for edit warring with numerous others on that article. No you just don't get it and I can't see any reason why we don't just block you indefinitely for disruption, among other things.--MONGO 17:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This does indeed appear to be a single-purpose account, focusing on Kellogg's alleged use of the drug, and using sources such as http://fraudmountaineer.wordpress.com that seem equally focused on this topic. This account has also been blocked for edit-warring, has described disputes as vandalism [70], [71] and made extravagant personal attacks on MONGO when confronted [72] and claiming those who dispute their edits are " fan-stalkers of Kellogg." Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• If any of these personal attacks are repeated Everestrecords should be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• and I'd recommend an immediate topic ban from the Kellogg article. Wordpress as a source for a BLP? Seriously? the panda ₯’ 18:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  I stumbled into Everertrecords and his editing as they were trying to undermine information on the Mount McKinley article, particularly in regards to Chad Kellogg, a recently deceased mountain climber. BLP is less enforceable on the deceased but as far as recently deceased, it's probably better to err on the side of caution. The material that Everestrecords wishes to add is negative and not really very important..all it is is that Kellogg admitted before he died that on one attempt to speed climb Mount Everest, he took a supplement, one pill just one time, and stated he did so as a preventative not as an aide. Everestrecords is hell bent on only adding the part about the pill use, without expanding on what the climber actually said. This appears, even in the bio of a deceased person, to be nothing more than a smear....in an article about a recently deceased person it's just a deliberate insult. Whatever pill use the climber admitted to, it is inconsequential anyway since the one time he admitted to using the pill, it did not result in a successful effort.--MONGO 18:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the first time Everestrecords has been here. I'd strongly suggest he listen to what everyone else is telling him, before the WP:BOOMERANG hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• So to sum up... BLP violations (recently-deceased people fall under BLP), single-purpose account, edit-warring, and personal attacks (pretty vicious ones too, this one is inexcusable). I'm not seeing how Wikipedia benefits from Everestrecords having editing privileges. -- Atama頭 17:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• All of the comments above are about what happened 1+ weeks ago. Apologies, and it will not happen again.
• I'm not using the wordpress reference any longer, and will no longer use any self-published references, including I won't use Collin Wallace's distinguished Everest history website, because it's self-published.
• My account is not single-purpose. List of my contributions [73]

Everestrecords (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of fixing up the indenting.Blackmane (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution requested here [74]

Everestrecords (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question. Could you let me know what is wrong with the addition I did to the article 1.5 weeks ago? This is it. This is what led to all of the days of 25+ paragraphs of debate. 1 sentence, 1 source (Outside Magazine.

Outside Magazine revealed Kellogg used the "powerful steroid dexamethasone" for an Everest speedclimb attempt.[75]

The edit waring, etc, began after the above addition was deleted and not permitted and no discussion permitted by user Mongo. Sorry again about the edit waring. I'm wondering now about the simple 1 sentence 1 source additon and why it wasn't permitted and not discussed by user Mongo and no one else including when I did help-me requests.

Everestrecords (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every edit you've made this month has been focused on denigrating Kellogg, except for a foray into attacks on Tina Sjögren such as this: [76]. If you think that kind of edit is acceptable, and if you're willing to attack other editors in the manner that you have when confronted, I don't think you should be editing. You certainly have no business editing biographies, living or dead. You have not come to this noticeboard with clean hands, and you've been skating around the personal attacks with statements like "the edit-warring, etc." Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How is the 1 sentence 1 source article a denigration on Kellogg?

Outside Magazine revealed Kellogg used the "powerful steroid dexamethasone" for an Everest speedclimb attempt.[77]

I also asked about this in my previous comment, and 3-4 times last week. The article is national media, my statement is just factual, I was open to rewording it, etc.

Why is the above statement a deingration/attack? Ive seen dozens of wikipedia articles with 99% positive about someone and then a Controveersy section.

Why were my edits "attacks" on Tina Sjogren? I simply used the article as a source. But anwyay I will not use the source again, so have nothing to add to the article on her. Nor anywhere else.

I'll also not do any edits of any articles unless they're accepted in the Talk page. Best for new users unfamiliar with wikipedia to do this. I should haev used the 3rd party help first, and Dispute Resolution, and so on. Apologies again.

I couuld check back in a few weeks, and try again at the Talk page about my OUtside Magazine proposal. Maybe this is best? i'LL not do any edits/additons to articles again. Will leave that up to the people that work here or who are established here. I didn't understand this before.

Everestrecords (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be using Wikipedia to settle scores: the Sjögren edit is unambiguous defamation that has no place in an encyclopedia. The fact that you don't understand that is of great concern. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what benefit is served to the article on Chad Kellogg or to Wikipedia by adding this incident that is so petty it would never stand in any BLP. To be very very blunt...the addition of this edit to that bio is in such poor taste...and doesn't even tell us what the man actually admitted to. He said before he died that he took one pill one time to prevent injury not to aide his effort to speed climb Mount Everest. Its such a minor issue that even the one reference that mentions it, that was in a magazine and published before he died, waits for 40 paragraphs before it mentions it...it's a non issue since no records were broken by this "drug abuse". Everestrecords tunnel vision on this is ridiculous...he's made nary one useful edit anywhere to the encyclopedia...he is exactly the kind of editor that makes real editors want to quit in disgust. Now he's also forum shipping at the dispute resolution noticeboard to POV push this bull.--MONGO 03:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Everestrecords was also busy pushing negative information at a different BLP last November..between that argument and the one that commenced over this issue a couple weeks back Everestrecords made no edits with that account for over four months.--MONGO 03:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet another example of Everestrecord's apparent motivations can still be seen at ...Talk:Tina Sjögren.--MONGO 03:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This diff is the one in question: I've removed that comment per WP:BLP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on the unsatisfactory responses by Everestrecords above and on their recent editing history I've left a strongly worded warning on their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Acroterion, I replied at my Talk page, accepting the good advice of the other editor. And replied to you. Btw, I addressed what you say above about the Sjogren article in my comment above. I've addressed it many times. Concerns me that you can't get that. I said i realize the source and content are not acceptable for the article oN Sjogren. Above, and before also. Good luck.

The other points below I also addressed. Many many times. Yet no one has addressed anything i've stated. The recent person at my Talk page finally did in a 2 sentence comment.

You say 'based on the unsatisifactory responses by Eversetrecords". I started this Admin Noticeboard thread. I provided simple questions. I apologized, and focused my question on 1 thing. You didn't address it. The person at my Talk page did. I replied there. He/she gave good advice. good luck again. Everestrecords (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Best of luck. Thank you malerooster [78][79] Wise. You should be a senior administrator. Aappreciation comment[80]

Everestrecords (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm confused about the whole thing but it appears consensus is that MONGO is getting a "barnstar?" I am happy to post it if the type of barnstar is identified. --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

Admins this is to notify that this user User:TheRedPenOfDoom is violating my edits. Firstly he reverted my edits on Street light & Parking lot where i posted my own work photos. Despite this user is completely violating rules of Wikipedia. Moreover his user page has beem deleted a number of times. Please admins do take a strict action against this user! TekkenLeiWulong (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what the reason was for Red Pen's unexplained reversion here. There are plenty of images in this article, but the Mumbai motorcycle park does show something distinct from the majority of other US/European car parks. It certainly looks like a reversion more because of the editor, than about their edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't see any problem, and certainly not anything that warrants an ANI report. I understand why he might have chosen to remove them, as the quality wasn't better than the existing and arguably didn't add much to the topic. Regardless, that is a matter of editing, not a matter of policy violation nor a matter for administrators to decide. I did notice you reverted him after his deletion, I suggest you read WP:BRD and not get into an edit war. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:36, 26 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.

Religion stats

Content dispute. No administrative action required. De728631 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, Can someone please opine on this article's talk page regarding simple stats? For the record I am defending this version because it is TEXTO what the 2 reliable sources say. Nobody apparently disputes the sources (2008 & 2012, Zogby polls.) Simple as that, but BOTH editors (who contradict each other; & with one who was blocked) oppose this version nevertheless. Am i missing something here? Thanks for your input in advance! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is not a case for ANI, but it looks like a perfect candidate for WP:DRN. Admin do NOT determine content, thankfully. We can enforce a consensus of editors once it is clear, or as an editor be a part of that consensus, but not both. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Sint Maarten

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 above user appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. My direct experience with him dates back to April 11, when I reverted a highly POV edit he made to Moscow, Idaho here. This morning, he made a politically charged edit to MY userpage, written in my voice, apologizing to himself for that revision here. I reverted that. Shortly afterwords, a brand new editor Jagen de Vagen (The name says quack, IMHO) made an edit to my userpage here, scolding me in English and French for picking on his friend Sint. Sint has only 119 edits since his account as created in January and only 59 of them have been to mainspace, including this gem, where he removes all the references and replaces it with POV. Asking for blocks all around per WP:DUCK and WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty egregious, in my opinion. I've blocked User:Sint Maarten for blatant POV-pushing, user page/talk page vandalism, and impersonation of other editors (i.e., John from Idegon); obviously this user is welcome to respond to those reasons, but this type of editing is patently disruptive and I see no reason to allow it to continue in the meantime. As for User:Jagen de Vagen, quack quack. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I google translated the French and he says among other things that I should "eat dudu" and he was going to "cut me with a big knife". Given that should you or I take further action? John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Do I need to start an SPI report for this? It seems a checkuser run is in order due to the WP:BRO argument being foisted by both users and it seems that some documentation is in order just in case someone shows up in the middle of the night and cuts me with a big knife. John from Idegon (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now this fella needs to have his talk page access blocked. [81] John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access removed for this threat. GiantSnowman 23:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access also revoked for sockpuppet User:Jagen de Vagen for the same sort of threatening comments; I won't link to the diffs here per WP:DENY, but feel free to look at the history. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:13, 26 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.

Two disruptive new editors fail to get the point

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.

---

Reporting disruptive behaviour of:

• Rajivgupta33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Homespun33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

on the article:

• Omar Abdullah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It all started with Homespun (H) adding this to the article way back in 25 January which was reverted by a patroller. H undid the patroller and asked why, H was told that it was unencylopaedic and promotional. This process happened four more times with different editors on 30 January, 3, 4 and 11 February.

So H finally got this content added to the article despite being warned by atleast four different editors. Since this is my usual sphere of editing, I too came across this page while patrolling and intervened, having it removed at first sight on 9 April. Now a another new account Rajivgupta (R) promptly undoes me seeking an explanation while H has also posted on the talk page. I respond to both of them on various talk pages (my talk page topic link, H's talk page, R's talk page and the Article talk page topic link).

From 9 April till today (25th), both H and R have been undoing me with a total of seven times. They both are single-purpose accounts. The pattern does not indicate any obvious socking but maybe meatpuppetry could be possible. Initially I gave explanations, then it turned to offering to help them out and finally, template warnings. They both keep telling me I have an "ego" and should wait for "consensus".

Finally, I refrained from reverting and told them both to calm down on the article talk page promising not to edit war till they respond. It did calm H but they just keep repeating about me waiting for consensus. Fed up, I gave them the final warning on 22 April and after waiting two days with no response from H, made my final revert there. Then today R reverts me and posts on my talk page that about me having an ego and whether I'm the Founder of Wikipedia.

Just like in my warning, I came straight here and posted this. I'm not sure how to proceed with those two, need help. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked both of them indefinitely as promotion-only accounts. WP:NOTHERE also comes to mind. De728631 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@De728631: It definitely does. I probably wasted time being so lenient with them. Thanks a lot and good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:50, 26 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.

Vaselineee

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.

---

Vaselineee (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in disruptive edits, and has received repeated warnings on his talk page. This recent edit is unacceptable. I recommend a block. Barryjjoyce (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor has a history of BLP violations, and this most recent edit is unambiguously vandalism. Looking through their contributions, I see very little that is productive, so I blocked them as a vandalism-only account. (Technically not every edit was vandalism but most of it seemed to be.) -- Atama頭 16:02, 25 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 hibbert

Hey guys someone vandelisez the Roy hibbert page. Including the height, pls fix thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B015:54F2:357B:A87B:770A:D75 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The place for such a request would be WP:RFP, not here. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a perfectly acceptable place for the request. Random vandalism doesn't need to go to RFP. --Onorem (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism has been removed and the article has been semi'd. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This IPv6 has got me thinking though, do we have somewhere to report non-excessive vandalism (say, twice or three times) that hasn't been reverted for a long time (say, a month)? There's millions of articles out there and they may not even all be being watched. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 18:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. WP:SOFIXIT applies: if you find vandalism, revert it. That's not always obvious to IP editors, or they may not be comfortable making changes themselves, but there's really not a venue for them to report issues like this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Katcheic at 2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office terrorist attack

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

---

Hello everyone. Sorry to be posting here but I'm uncertain of any other manner to resolve what I think is a potential user conduct issue, much as I'm worried this may boomerang on me. The background is that there's just been a requested move process on the article in question that closed three or four days ago and the result was a consensus of four editors ( one of whom was myself) to move the article to 2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting. In the last 24 hours, user Katcheic has appeared and moved the article to its current title without discussion, despite the preexisting consensus on title in two edits. The new title appears to violate WP:TERRORIST in my eyes, though perhaps I am wrong in this. This editor has been advised by Callanecc to discuss page moves in December. The guidance isn't overly clear what to do in this situation, the best conclusion I've been able to come to is to raise the matter here. If I'm unintentionally being a jerk, I'm happy to accept whatever consequences that comes with and wholeheartedly apologize for disturbing the admins with this, regardless.

I have informed Katcheic of this discussion here Dolescum (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the article should be moved back to 2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting which was the result of the 21 April discussion and then be move protected. Further moves should require a new discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the move was done and the page protected so I guess this is over, now? Or was additional action called for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The page is now protected at the title decided by the April 21 move discussion ('office shooting'). Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 25 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.

Ownership and harrasment

User:Dontreader has MAJOR ownership issues regarding the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article and uses harrasment and attacks to try control the content of that page, attacks that still continue [82]. Unfortunately an administrator has assited Mr Treader in these efforts.
"I refuse to let Duff get away with trying to edit the article". "You have already wiped out many well-crafted sentences and paragraphs that took me a long time to compose." consult with the main contributors to this page before changing the format of the references section."
Mr Treader had a single purpose account dedicated to editing this page. When someone dared suggest the twins were not notable and suggested that the page should be deleted Mr Treader (along with another editor [83]) launched a vile attack on another party who dared to fix up the nomination [84]. Whilse Mr Treader did post this it was clearly a hollow apology "she made a big mistake during that process" (NO she did not).
After leaving time to let those two cool down I later came back to the page and was greeted by a campaign of slander. Mr Treader went around to third parties and rubbished me with a serious of personal attacks. "guys like Duffbeerforme are out there without a leash" "He is suffering badly now, in this life, but he will suffer much greater torment in the afterlife" "Anyway, I have strong reasons to believe that Duffbeerforme and the anonymous user who first changed the style of the references section are the same person, and Duffbeerforme was very hostile, " I think it's a shame that there are very rude people out there, such as Duffbeerforme, who constantly roam Wikipedia behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Never courteous or constructive, or suggesting other ways to do things better; just highly destructive, making Wikipedia a war zone.", "I'm tired of my edits being systematically reverted by duffbeerforme" Individually most are not much but add them together along with running around to all those different places it becomes something. Admin User:Bgwhite's reaction was to tell me it's wrong to ask someone not to make personal attacks, to pretend that attacks were not attack, to state that Mr Treader owns the article and to tell me to reward Mr Treader for making attacks User talk:Dontreader#NPA. I objected to the idea of rewarding him so Bgwhite decided to ban me User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 18#Re Dontreader.
Places where Mr Treaders issues have been discussed with him by others. User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 028#What am I supposed to do with this User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 028#Hostile_activity_on_a_page_that_I_contribute_to. User talk:Dontreader#Final warning. User talk:Dontreader#Second NPA warning User talk:Dontreader#On being an effective editor. User talk:Dontreader#Please take it easy. User talk:Lukeno94/Archive 3#Camille and Kennerly Kitt page being considered for deletion. Talk:Camille and Kennerly Kitt#Time to move on.
An understanding was created where neither Mr Treader or myself would make changes, we'd make changes and a mediator would make changes. (note; not Mr Treader would tell Bgwhite what he wanted and Bgwhite would do it for him). Bgwhite broke that understanding at the behest of Mr Treader while demanding I stick to it.
Mr Treader belittling and attacks continue (User talk:Bgwhite#Lesser) and it looks like they have driven away the mediator who has shown incredible patience. Other recent diatribes, User talk:Dontreader#Roar (song), User talk:Dontreader#Lesser Cartographies, what have you done?, User talk:Lesser Cartographies/Archive 1#Harp Twins.
Bgwhite has continually, in complete opposition of the policy of WP:AGF, characterised my actions in a negative light. He has after insisting on discussion chosen to ignore what has been decided and impose his own version. He continually asserting Mr Treader's ownership. He continues to turn a blind eye to Mr Treader's continuing attacks. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the AfD, it's pretty clear that there were a fair number of SPIs focused on this article were involved and those SPIs feel like promotional accounts. It's also clear that the AfD's result would have been keep in any case. Basic theme: though notable, there does appear to be a concerted effort to promote these twins and Dontreader, though contributing somewhat more broadly, looks to be a part of that. The article could probably use some editing to reduce its promotional nature. I didn't look at the disputes themselves, just the AfD and article. Hobit (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sign... Long story short, Duff hates Treader and Treader hates Duff. There is no love lost between them. I and Lesser stepped in and asked that neither side edit anymore. Any proposed edits be done by Lesser or me. Lesser took the point. Treader has kept to that and Duff has not, which resulted in me reverting Duff several times and his "love" towards me, including his non-AGF. All told, Lesser has made the vast majority of edits since the agreement. I've done two edits and two reverts during this mess.
• Treader does have some serious ownership issues and lack of good faith. However, he has not edited the article since the agreement nor had any ownership issues on other articles that I'm aware of. His temper has been directed towards Duff and Lesser. It did get so bad that I asked Lesser to recluse himself and walk away, which he did. I've asked Treader to submit any changes to me now. He hasn't edited since.
• There's nothing that needs to be addressed at ANI. Just Treader and Duff's hatred toward each other, Duff's unwillingness to move on, Treader's personal issues with this one article and both of their problems with AGF. Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So you think it's ok for Mr Treader to continuously attack people?
  • Simple question that goes back near the beginning. Why is it wrong to ask someone not to make personal attacks? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Duff, the issue of personal attacks against me has been solved: I'm no longer mediating, so there's no reason for Don and I to interact further. You and Don continue to have the good sense to leave each other alone, and both of you have refrained from editing the article. That's about the best solution we can hope for. If Bgw starts allowing fancruft edits—and I have no reason to think that he will—then ping me and we'll all head over to WP:DRN. If Don goes nonlinear the first time Bgw declines one of his suggestions, then Bgw can ask an uninvolved admin to review the situation and warn or block as needed. For right now, though, we've still got a stable article and Don has stopped barking at me. Just hang out and we'll see where we go from here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Bgwhite, please take note of yet another mistake made by Lesser Cartographies. He wrote above, "I'm no longer mediating, so there's no reason for Don and I to interact further." But then he added, "If Bgw starts allowing fancruft edits (...) then ping me and we'll all head over to WP:DRN." Why can't Duff go to DRN by himself? Is Duff a newbie??? If Lesser sees no reason for him and myself to interact further, and he has implied that I have attacked him, then why would he want to potentially see me again at DRN (and possibly expose himself to further "attacks") if Duff becomes unhappy with an edit you make? Duff can go there by himself if necessary. Besides, Lesser took a shot at you, implying that you (an administrator) might break the rules and let me get away with fancruft edits. A very cheap trick to give everyone the impression that you are biased in my favor, and to dissuade you from accepting ANYTHING I might propose for the article. And he's still plotting to eventually get me banned from Wikipedia by provoking me at DRN at some point. Lesser JUST DOES NOT LEARN. I can outmaneuver him and expose him even when I'm utterly sleep deprived. I'm glad all of this will be archived. If I make life difficult for Lesser again, it will be his fault entirely, but if Lesser is wise he will rectify and state that he won't participate in a hypothetical DRN scenario, to avoid further contact with me. Duff would not need his help (actually, Duffbeerforme, I'd feel very insulted if I were you). Sorry, Bgwhite, but I really think that my AGF issues are completely justified when it comes to Duff and Lesser. Dontreader (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hobit, could you please clarify the meaning of SPIs? If you are talking about sock puppetry then that would be a serious accusation. Also, there has never been a concerted effort to promote the Harp Twins on Wikipedia. I have never sent a private message to (or received one from) any of the contributors to the article. I did receive a private message from Lesser Cartographies, and I replied; we exchanged a few messages over a span of a few days, but it was within the context of his mediation role. I have no idea who the other contributors are, but they are obviously fans of the Kitt twins, as I am, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the rules are followed. I believe there's a big difference between some editors contributing to an article about musicians they are fans of, and a concerted effort to promote them. Besides, the traffic to the Harp Twins article page is completely insignificant compared with the traffic to their social media sites where they heavily promote themselves.
• Regarding duffbeerforme, during the AfD discussion, he campaigned vigorously for the deletion of the article; then he showed up several months later on the article. This is what happened:

1. An IP address user (who had never contributed to the article before that day) made substantial changes, here, completely changing the referencing style. I saw no problem with the referencing style that we all had been using, and no one else had ever indicated that it should be modified, so I reverted that edit.

2. Duffbeerforme, who had never contributed to the article, changed everything that I had reverted, here. Is there even ONE administrator here that can remember ONE user that campaigned at length for the deletion of an article, and then at some point began to edit that article in an uncivil way? And if I have not proven that DuffBeerforme was uncivil, please read point 3.

3. I reverted his edit, and in my edit description I told him to make his case on the talk page, which is the appropriate and civil thing to do. Well, you can find his insulting response on the talk page to my very polite introduction here.

4. But Duffbeerforme was far from finished with his "contributions" to the article; he then made this edit. So, in order to try to reach a compromise, I took out the shop links, here, but then Duffbeerforme reverted that edit, here. His hostile manner could not be clearer, and that's how my war with him began.

5. Do you think he stopped there? Not even close. I went to RSN to ask if shop links were allowed in music articles to support content. Guess who answered my question? You guessed right: Duffbeerforme! Lesser Cartographies (mentioned above) scolded him for doing that, and that's approximately when he decided to become a mediator, to which Bgwhite agreed.

6. During those days, Duffbeerforme nominated two articles created by Robcamstone (the other main contributor to the Harp Twins article) for deletion. Both Lesser Cartographies and Bgwhite can confirm this information. The consequence of this attack was that Robcamstone retired permanently from Wikipedia, even demanding that his username be erased.

7. Bgwhite issued a final warning to both Duff and myself (identical messages on our talk pages, which you can read here. I have entirely complied with Bgwhite's demands, whereas Duffbeerforme has defied his authority as a Wikipedia administrator, editing the article, including an edit description which constitutes a personal attack, here.

• I think it is sufficiently clear who the real troublemaker is in this situation. Since I have spent valuable time defending myself here, I will take just a few more seconds to make one simple request: Please ban Duffbeerforme from editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article. That simple measure will solve this year-long problem (dating back to his passionate campaigning for the deletion of the article). Thanks for your time. Dontreader (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Don, it's pretty darn clear that there are a bunch of accounts which are purely focused, or nearly purely focused on this one subject. I've no evidence that they are working together or not (though I'd certainly put even money on it that some are). But you are clearly focused on this one subject (which is allowed) and others are much more so. do you have any kind of WP:COI with this subject? Hobit (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Hobit, please ping me if/when you write here again, if you don't mind. Which "bunch" of accounts are you talking about. I only see two suspicious accounts: Crowdsalesmed and Bollywooddancer7. It's possible that Crowdsalesmed (who created the page) became disillusioned with Wikipedia once the war with Duffbeerforme broke out. Robcamstone quit, all because of what Duffbeerforme was doing; however, I'm not here to defend Crowdsalesmed and Bollywooddancer7 (any other suspicious usernames, please?). I am merely a big fan of the Harp Twins. I even took a total of four planes and ten buses just to see them perform and meet them in person. Also, when I discovered that they had a Wikipedia page, I soon decided that a picture should be added. I NEVER imagined that it would take me over a hundred hours to get that done. After that, well, understandably I was going to defend the article from deletion with all my strength at the AfD discussion, which I did. What makes no sense is the effort that Duffbeerforme put into trying to get it deleted (and later he went back to the article to cause more trouble). The pain involved with uploading the picture (legally) did radicalize me when it comes to that article, I must admit, and then Duff's actions only made things worse. There is no conflict of interest. It would be wonderful if Camille and Kennerly sent me a nice check for all the crap I've been through here defending their article from Duff, and all the craziness that he has caused (I can't edit the article directly as part of an agreement, for example), but as I said, they care about their social media sites, not Wikipedia (I mentioned earlier that the traffic to their page is minimal). Anyway, I've agreed with Bgwhite to focus on other pages for several months. Please read my previous entry carefully again. I do want you to please consider banning Duffbeerforme from editing the Harp Twins page. He has made life miserable for many people on Wikipedia (examine his contributions if you have the time), and I suppose he will continue to do so, but all I can ask is for you or another administrator to please ban him specifically from editing the Harp Twins page since I'm already here at ANI. Thanks for your time. Dontreader (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Mr DonTreader, I did argue for the articles deletion. That does not disqualify me from editing the page as you seem to want with your repeated demands for my banning.

1. That was a good edit. The referencing style was fairly useless and needed to be changed. It does not matter that they had not edited the page before.

2. That was a good edit. The referencing style was fairly useless and needed to be changed. There was nothing uncivil about it. As you were told, [85] "I see no hostility at all in improving references; on the contrary, it was a good thing to do, and there is nothing impolite about being WP:BOLD and doing it."

3. Your "introduction" was not polite. Demanding others consult you is not polite. Wikipedia is not here for you to make pretty shrines.

4. Wikipedia is not a directory of download links. My edit was good. You claim to have taken out the shop links. You did not. You just tried to use Wikipedia to promote the sales of their songs. Wikipedia is not a directory of download sites.

5. One of the many places you went venue shopping. Yes I did answer your question. That was a good thing. Yes I failed to fully disclose my involvement and for that I was duly trouted.

6. I nominated Jazz At the Theatre and Bonnie Langford Now (Selections From Her One Woman Show Live and Direct). Note that they are both deleted. Nominating article that do not belong here is not an attack. See [86] "if another editor notices you're creating articles without using reliable sources, it's not WP:HARASSMENT to review that editor's contributions to determine how widespread the problem is, and then to fix the problem. That's good-faith editing."

7. [[87]] "You are too wrapped up by Duff's actions. Let it go." You did not "entirely complied with Bgwhite's demands". You kept going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about my actions. And that's just March and April. Remember this? " I promise I will NEVER mention that editor again, on any page, as you demanded." The very next day you mentioned me [88]. Never lasted a long time. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mentioning Duffbeerforme became inevitable very quickly; it was foolish of me to promise never to mention him again. Anyway, I have made my case. I don't think I have anything else to add, other than the fact that it's obvious that for some unknown reason Duffbeerforme is clearly obsessed with the need to continue editing that article. It makes sense for me to want to edit the Harp Twins page because I'm a big fan of theirs, yet I will forget about it for several months and focus on improving other pages, as Bgwhite suggested; however, Duffbeerforme's irrational obsession with that article has caused massive problems, and this ordeal will continue as long as he remains able to edit that article. Therefore, again, I request that Duffbeerforme be permanently banned specifically from editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article; he has plenty of other articles to choose from to improve the encyclopedia. Dontreader (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• What happened in that one hour between promising never to mention me and you mentioning me that made it "inevitable"? Anything? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions for User:Bgwhite.

"Any proposed edits be done by Lesser or me." The understanding was that Lesser would make edits, not you. You violated that understanding then demanded I stick to it.

Let's look at your "Final warning". "Duff is provoking you, just don't take bait." Mischaracterising my actions in a negative manner and assuming bad faith. "I've asked you to stay away to de-escalate the situation.". No you ordered me not to edit Dontreaders page (WP:OWN). "Nothing says prodding more than that." Once again mischaracterising my actions and assuming bad faith. "By doing so, you are doing purely to provoke and prod Dont." Once again mischaracterising my actions and assuming bad faith. Why was your incivility warning so full of incivility? Why did you bring up that line about baiting when you were baiting me? "The next time blocks will happen." Like the previous time you said you'd block Dontreader if he attacked me? "If I see it again, I will block you." This is followed by another attack <9 hours later, "I am absolutely certain that he has a serious demonic affliction". Still waiting. And the attacks have gone on and on and on.

Let's have another look at NPA. "You leaving the the NPA message to begin with was wrong." How was this wrong? "First, levelling accusations without proof is also a personal attack". Why say this AFTER I provided proof? "Dontreader, don't mention Duffbeerforme again in any messages." Is Dontreader following your instructions as you claim. "I do believe you went after Robscamstone's articles to look for what could be deleted". Once again Mischaracterising my actions and assuming bad faith. "Duffbeerforme don't work on one of Robcamstone's or Dontreader's articles." Why say that they own the article when their ownership issues are the core of the problem. Why were you trying to reward Dontreaders attacks?

Let's look at Re Dontreader. "You did specifically target other editor's articles for deletion." Once again mischaracterising my actions and assuming bad faith. Seems to be a common theme for you. "I did tell Dontreader if I see a personal attack again, I will block them." Still waiting. "Per WP:IBAN, I can ban you from interacting with Dontreader and I'm doing it." No you can't. "I've also addressed it with them and threatened blocks if they do it again" Still waiting. "Admins can impose interaction bans which also cover reverting other people's edits." No they can't. "I'd also advise you not to touch one of Robcamstone's articles for the same reason." Once again saying that someone owns an article. " If you think one of Robcamstone's articles should be slapped with a PROD or AfD, ask someone else to take a look. I have no problem if you ask me." I asked you. What happened?

This is not just as you describe above. It's also about your continued acceptance of Dontreaders repeated attacks despite your claims otherwise. And your talk of AGF while you do the opposite. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hobit and whichever other administrators are here at ANI, at this point it's absolutely clear that Duffbeerforme must be banned permanently from editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article. Lesser Cartographies stepped down from his position as mediator for that article, and the very next day Duffbeerforme opened a discussion here because he cannot cope with that reality; he is absolutely furious, and look at all the stuff he's been spewing out. This is beyond bizarre even by Twilight Zone standards. Did Duffbeerforme create the article? No. Was he a regular contributor to the article? No. Did he campaign with great intensity to try to get the article deleted? Yes. Had he made ANY edits to the article before the AfD discussion? No. Did he come to the article several months later, creating an edit war? Yes. Did he make the other main contributor decide to retire from Wikipedia by "coincidentally" nominating two of his articles for deletion when the war began? Yes. So just think about these extreme measures that Duffbeerforme is taking by opening a discussion here at ANI and saying all of these things just because the mediator for the Camille and Kennerly article stepped down. Why is he so mortified? This is totally irrational. There are many other articles that he can edit. And why was there a mediator in the first place??? We are talking about a highly problematic person, obviously, to put it nicely, with a perplexing obsession. I, as a fan of the Harp Twins, should be allowed to contribute to that article in peace, and of course I welcome others to contribute, and to discuss whatever differences of opinion may arise while editing it. But not Duffbeerforme; he must be banned permanently from editing that article. That is the only solution for this problem. Dontreader (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't speak on whether Duffbeerforme's edits are disruptive but it doesn't matter whether an editor had a hand in creating an article, unless they are topic-banned, any editor can edit this article. Saying you are a fan of the subject of the page doesn't give you more privileges or rights. Your (and anyone else') edits should be based on their merits, not on when an editor started working on an article or whether they are a fan or not. In fact, being a fan might mean that an editor lacks a NPOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Liz, thanks for your input. Could you please confirm that you are an administrator? You have several accounts, so I haven't checked all of them. Please read the entire thread. I am not able to edit that article because of the war caused by Duffbeerforme after he went to the article 6 months after he campaigned militantly for its deletion. You said, "any editor can edit this article." That's incorrect. I have not been able to edit that article for half a year, as part of an agreement reached with the administrator Bgwhite, which included Lesser Cartographies as a mediator. This peculiar situation is the consequence of Duffbeerforme's behavior (chiefly an irrational desire to edit that article, and in a disruptive manner), and of Lesser Cartographies' decision to try to be a referee for me (a former regular contributor to the article) and Duffbeerforme (a person who tried his best to destroy the article). Many articles about musicians are edited to some degree by fans of those musicians. Since you brought up NPOV, I will ask you if you believe an editor who tried to destroy an article and then comes back to edit it might lack a NPOV (or good faith, for that matter). Please read the entire thread, if you have a chance. This crazy situation has been going on for half a year, as I said. That's too long, and it should not continue indefinitely. The only solution is to ban Duffbeerforme from that article permanently. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Dontreader, FYI, I am not an administrator either, and secondly commentary on this page is not limited to administrators. In fact, at the very top of the page it says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". Without a doubt Liz would certainly count as the latter. Thirdly, excessive hyperbole is rather melodramatic. Language such as "..because of the war..", "...campaigning militantly...", and various examples in your reply prior to Liz's, is that really necessary? Quite frankly, at this point, both you and duffbeer should cease the commentary and allow an uninvolved admin to check things out. The more that is posted, sans diffs, the less likely anything actionable will happen. Diffs were provided at the start, now stop the petty jabs at each other (and melodrama) and wait for an admin response. Blackmane (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, nah, I'm not an administrator. I just recall the dispute over this article last fall which appeared to be completely out-of-proportion to the subject (IMHO). I personally would love it if everyone who voted to delete an article or category I thought was useful was forbidden from editing it in the future but that is not how Wikipedia works. As for my usernames, I don't see how they are relevant to this discussion but I created an account some years ago, decided I wanted to just edit as an IP for a few years and then created this account last summer. Both the registered accounts and the IPs (the ones I can recall) are listed on my User Page and are acknowledged. You can browse through the contributions if you want, but I don't think you'll come across anything pertinent to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Blackmane, thanks for pointing out my mistake concerning who can intervene at ANI. I obviously made an erroneous assumption based on the title of the noticeboard. I appreciate the rest of your advice, too, as well as the time you took to read the entire thread. I will not post further comments on the matter. Liz, I'm glad you agree with my point of view regarding editors who have voted to delete an article, although I would make an exception for administrators. A new rule could and should be made, but for now I'm asking for something much simpler, stated above. Duffbeerforme is neither an administrator nor an experienced editor, and I would love to see ONE example of someone in his category making useful contributions to an article that he/she thought should be deleted (with a delete vote). Anyway, I brought up your multiple names simply because you didn't show up as an administrator under "Liz", and I didn't want to go through the list with every name. It doesn't matter because, as Blackmane said, experienced editors such as yourself can intervene here. I apologize for not realizing that on my own. Thanks for your reply. Dontreader (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over whether essay contradicts policy

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

---

This is more for experienced editors rather than administrators per se.

I wrote an essay I intend as guidance based on WP:AT and tagged it as a guidance essay with the "Guidance essay" template tag. Other users disagree with my interpretation of policy and feel the guidance is contrary to policy, and so the Guidance essay tag should not be there.

Anyway, please have a look:

• WP:Concision razor
• Wikipedia talk:Concision razor

Thanks! --B2C 16:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOESSAY states that essays that contradict policy should either be deleted, or moved into user space. What category an essay should fall under is a subjective determination of the nature of the essay, which can be resolved through discussion if people disagree.

Technically, this request shouldn't be here, it should be at WP:AN if you wanted to get the advice of administrators, or at WP:VP if you wanted the advice of editors in general. ANI should be for reporting a particular incident. -- Atama頭 16:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I considered WP:AN, but it says, "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.", and WP:ANI says, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors."

Since I seek discussion about an incident (dispute over placement of tag on a particular essay stemming from disagreement about whether essay contradicts policy) requiring the intervention of at least experienced editors, I thought it was more appropriate to post here.

Anyway, the problem is that there is a dispute among experienced editors about whether this particular essay contradicts policy - I believe it requires the intervention of objective/experienced editors to resolve it.

I do seek to resolve this through discussion. I'm seeking input from objective/uninvolved experienced editors on this dispute to help resolve it there. Thanks! --B2C 18:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you run into serious problems resolving this dispute, consider the advice about dispute resolution, including the use of the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm not unsympathetic, I wrote a Wikipedia space essay that twice ended up at miscellany for deletion; it survived the first discussion and only survived the second discussion with significant changes. (Changes which I conceded then were necessary, and still consider to have improved the essay.) So I understand your plight somewhat. But my essay is still around almost 5 years later (though modified by many other editors) and seems to be pretty-well accepted, so don't be too discouraged. And accept that some of your detractors may be right (in my case they were). -- Atama頭 20:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It was resolved in discussion. There was a misunderstanding. Thank you. --B2C 00:00, 25 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.

Vandalism at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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:Swollib has vandalized DRN twice[89][90] and posted a rant about the Pope being behind a 72-hour block he received in 2005 on my talk page.[91] Somehow this is related to User:125.239.145.26.[92][93] Notifications sent. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The IP is currently (very unsuccessfully) disputing a block for trolling while ranting about claims that Wikipedia is controlled by Christians, funded by the pope, etc. I don't see much else needed there, other than the user perhaps losing talk page access and/or extending their block.

Swollib responded on the IP's talk page with a personal attack that I removed.[94] They seem to be pursuing "The Truth". The DRN posts seem to be trying to expose the apparent threat to "The Truth" posed by the IP. If Swollib doesn't hear the message to stop soon, they'll be blocked through the usual channels. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to respond to his madness by not attacking the crazy lunatic freak. I'm sorry for being in breach of the rules before. Swollib (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Try harder. Admins, may I suggest a revdel at User:125.239.145.26? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Swollib indeffed. We're done here. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

When they started making disruptive edits to user pages, I had to put a stop to them. I've revdel'd the edits and deleted the IP talk as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Are Wikipedia's servers really buried underground at the Vatican? EEng (talk) 16:26, 26 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.

Ginger Alden AfD

On this AfD for Elvis Presley's fiance Ginger Alden, a user named Juliesong has attacked nominator Lady Lotus, accusing her of doing this simply because she doesn't like Ginger. Ad Orientem pointed out WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to Julie, and they seem to have been disregarded. I also gave an analysis for how Ginger fails WP:GNG, which Julie didn't seem to fully acknowledge. Julie's rationale was that Ginger passed notability for being an actress, model, author, and Elvis' fiance. A user named Elwood48 also argued Ginger was notable for being engaged to Elvis. Since Elwood came off as a single-purpose account (only editing articles relating to Elvis and Ginger), Lady Lotus added Elwood to suspected socks in this SPI. I requested CheckUser for the accounts, and in the SPI an IP address made comments that Julie would've likely made which Julie ended up signing. Admin Ponyo performed a CheckUser which indicated the accounts are unlikely the same user, though AfD should be watched for meatpuppetry and/or further disruption. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Has an attempt to put CIVIL and AGF into the IP and Elwood? To be honest I already hear the DUCKs quacking, actually, when did the IP and Elwood first pop up? MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 00:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So far, no, MM. Elwood hasn't be uncivil, just came off as a single-purpose account. The IP I'm certain has been informed of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (and probably ended up disregarding them). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As long as an editor abides by WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other Wikipedia policies, there is nothing wrong with being a SPA. Some people come to Wikipedia to focus on a narrow range of articles (or even just one article). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't an editor be blocked if a user uses an IP to cause trouble such as using it to cast a second vote in an AFD? And does WP:Notability is not inherited seem correct here? MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 18:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That is true, Liz, though unfortunately it seems that oftentimes SPA's become fixated on certain points and fuss when others disagree with them. On a side note, I'm a bit concerned with the edit summaries left from Hobit and Joefromrandb in the AfD. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, MM, voting more than once in an AfD or RfA is not abiding by Wikipedia policies and it doesn't really matter whether it is done by a registered account and an associated IP account or a registered account and a sock account. And being an IP editor doesn't mean one is a SPA which is simply an account where an editor focuses their edits on one article or a group of articles on one subject.

XXSNUGGUMSXX, SPAs seem to be more prone to pushing a POV but that isn't necessarily so. Similarly, the majority of vandalism edits might be done by IPs but that doesn't mean that the majority of IP editors are committing vandalism. There can be a correlation without a causation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, best not to overgeneralize. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hillsborough disaster

Talk:Hillsborough disaster is being trolled in a way that is particularly offensive and potentially high-profile. An IP-hopper is raising the old canard that 96 people died because fellow supporters without tickets forced their way into the stadium. They refuse to accept WP:TALKNO or heed repeated reversions. This is happening on the day that UK national media has been headlining offensive edits to Hillsborough disaster from government computers. Please can we have temporary semi-protection? This will affect another editor who's doing good work on this page but I think s/he'll be content; we're both struggling to contain this. NebY (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs: [95], [96], [97], [98] (Commented: "This be the TALK page - MORON !") and on and on for the last 5 hours.

It should be semi'ed, just like the main page is. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to semi-protection, especially as I think the talk page has all the detail it needs about the government edits now. The trolling is being done via a 3G phone so I suspect a range block would create too much collateral damage. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest that while the page is under such huge high-profile scrutiny we tread carefully and don't make massive changes unless the community agrees to them, please discuss major structural changes on the article's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. To change the title of one section from Dramatisations and documentaries to In popular culture[99] went beyond mere insensitivity to being grossly offensive to the families of the victims and the wider community around them, who have struggled for 25 years not to be dismissed. NebY (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not just that, but to attempt to wholesale change the article by suddenly applying WP:LEAD and in light of the current press stories would be inappropriate. Small steps. Anything else should go to the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Another change [100] but he's left the topic collapsed so I suggest we leave this one be and see what happens next. If he doesn't leave the talk page alone then further reverts and semi-protection would be the way to go. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted it before seeing this. NebY (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• That is a /16 network with a fair amount of traffic, so a range block isn't advisable. Semi-protecting seems a bit much at this point, although I won't labor it if another admin disagrees. I would suggest simply deleting any trolling (construed broadly) instead of hatting, and that admin be very tolerant of this. As it stands, most of the IPs are contributing in good faith so I would hate to cut them off. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The trolling has stopped for now, constructive suggestions and reasonable questions are continuing, openness is much better - I'm happy to withdraw the request and just say thanks for the help. NebY (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest not deleting the collapsed section, as it's the removal that seems to be the thing that gets the IP into revert wars (and restoring without the detailed rebuttal that's in the collapsed section). It's no ideal but I think it should stay as long as the IP doesn't try to raise the subject again. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:117Avenue

User:117Avenue keeps reverting edits to 41st Canadian Parliament, Bloc Québécois and André Bellavance claiming that information that Bellevance is no longer BQ leader is not in the reference, however my reference at http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Pages/PartyOfficersExecutives.aspx clearly states that the position of BQ leader is vacant. 192.235.250.130 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue appears to be that Bellavance is an interim leader until the next elections, and perhaps as such does not meet the criteria to be listed as a leader. You seem to believe that Bellavance has also resigned as interim leader to run in the leadership elections - do you have a source for this, as I can't find one (the reference you used in the diff above does not back your statement up). Number 57 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the IP is mistaken that the parliamentary leader and the party leader are the same office. References have stated Bellavance became the interim BQ leader on 16 December 2013, no source has been provided to state that he has resigned to run for the leadership permanently. 117Avenue (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Parliament of Canada website, however, says that the position of party leader is vacant. There is no source that says Bellavance is currently (ie since declaring his candidacy for leadership) interim leader. Further, there are sources that say he was, but is no longer, interim parliamentary leader. It stands to reason that if he has resigned as interim parliamentary leader he also resigned as interim leader. 147.194.1.170 (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the official list of all BQ leaders (including "acting" leaders) on the Parliament of Canada website does not list Bellavance (see http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Party.aspx?Item=a639384e-e1a0-4169-83da-904925139b6a ). It's likely that the press reports that stated he was interim leader were inaccurate and that, in fact, he was only interim parliamentary leader. I don't see that Wikipedia is in a position to overrule the Parliament of Canada website, particularly when it *does* list interim leaders when they exist. 147.194.1.170 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

When you started adding statements that he was interim party leader from December to February, when he resigned to run for the leadership, I started reverting you because you did not have a reference. On another reading of the Huffington Post reference I see you are right, in that it does not clearly say party leader. As it turns out, Bellavance was never party leader, thanks for your help in working this out. 117Avenue (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy-Paste of the content without rephrasing and proper citing

I would have fixed if that is not completely copied - it needs complete rewriting or otherwise fixing the content.

SECI model of knowledge dimensions

first two paragraphs are copy and paste from Gourley (2004) http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/2291/1/Gourlay%202004%20SECI.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irina Liuberte (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed for now. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) (not an administrator) 02:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy standoff

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

Two editors may have breached the 1RR restrictions at Talk:Bundy standoff/General Sanctions

• Wowaconia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [101] and [102]
• Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [103] and [104]

Cwobeel (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Both editors were warned, asked to self-revert but was ignored. Drmies removed the warning messages from his talk page. Cwobeel (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I just added an editnotice, in case my HTML comment was not visible enough (especially to people editing sections). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I created a template for warning editors about the general sanctions and 1RR at the article, at Template:uw-bundywarning. I copied it from a similar general sanction template. It's the first template I've made so if I screwed something up let me know. I left instructions about using that link on the general sanctions subpage. -- Atama頭 23:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is quite interesting to see that Drmies is an admin himself/herself, edit warring and breaching 1RR at the same time. I would expect that an admin will do better than that. Cwobeel (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: It is possible that they did not know that these rules were there to begin with and simply erred in their actions by accident. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Could be, but I warned them and suggested to them tho self-revert, but they ignored that advice. In any case blocks, I understand are not punitive, and now they are both aware. Cwobeel (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies already acknowledged that he was aware of your warning, and that he was unaware of the restrictions (that's why we have formal warnings). He is 100% welcome to remove such notifications from his talkpage - it's implicit notice that it's been READ. Your continued harassment of Drmies, however, is problematic...he's had to revert your additions more than once. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Is adding a comment and placing a warning on a user's talk page harassment? In any case, now they are aware of the restriction so we are done here. Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It can be depending on the circumstances. If you are leaving a warning for something that an editor didn't do, that could be considered a personal attack ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"). If you leave a warning that itself is abusive ("Don't revert me again or I'll find where you live" or "You are a jerk for removing that reference") then that could be harassment. Sometimes templated warnings left for established editors is considered rude (WP:DTTR) but I've never subscribed to that myself (templates are neutral ways to convey warnings or information, and I'd never take offense to an appropriate template left for me). -- Atama頭 17:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Atama, I guess I lost interest in the 3R refinement of a while ago (and 1R is completely dependent on that definition of "revert"), which, if I summarize correctly, posits a first edit (in this case, removal of material) as a revert, and thus my revert of the other editor's revert as a 1R violation. (When I play around on WP:3RN I still count to 4, since I'm not that trigger-happy.) So I guess I was unaware that the "strict" definition of 3R (and thus 1R) had actually become policy: I typically find myself on the other side, so to speak, that of the admin and not of the edit warrior, and my "old" interpretation allows for leniency. (I like leniency.) Hence my comment (somewhere, yesterday) that my opponent clearly broke 1R, reverting my edit twice. So that is, I suppose, where my error was--not in not knowing of the restriction, which I was aware of, as evidenced also by the fact that I didn't continue. Yes, someone templated me, but that didn't change my way of thinking since of course the template doesn't discuss what "R" is.

A recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring goes into the same subject matter and I find myself in sympathy with Jayron32's argument (11 March, 11:04), and note that I reverted only once--but again, that's my "old" language of what reverting means. As for the editor bugging me around, meh--they thanked me the first time I removed the irrelevant information, so that template came as a bit of a surprise, and they had some subsequent comments I didn't care for, but that's not a big deal. Mind you, I'm also not a fan of templating the regulars, for practical reasons as well--but I can only hope that this and this are more effective than templated "only warning"s. If the editor wanted to make me realize the error of my ways they should have chosen a different method, but I think their interest lies elsewhere. My apologies for having started this minor shit storm, and no doubt Bbb23, who lives and dies on 3R, will sent me a chastening email. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this is probably the fifth or sixth discussion I've seen over the past month where there was confusion over what was considered a "revert" and what was not. It seems like some admins view a revert as not simply the undoing another user's edit but any consequential edit to a section previously edited by another editor. I don't think this broad understanding should be used but that is probably a subject for a future RFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't subscribe to the "removing any material is reverting" philosophy. If you're removing something that was recently introduced, sure. Our policy on edit-warring states: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You can get as loose as you want with that interepretation. Okay, technically if you remove something from an article, you're "reverting" what someone else had written (though they may have added it 8 years ago). But technically, even adding brand new text is a "revert" since you're undoing the version of the article that didn't have that text before. It's a slippery slope. And it's not backed up by policy. It also doesn't help that our edit-warring policy refers to a number of essays within the policy, including WP:RV and WP:ROWN. Are we supposed to assume that those essays have the force of policy because a policy references them? All this wishy-washiness makes the idea of reverting meaningless, and turns 3RR into "three edits per day" which is ridiculous.

I think some administrators are missing the forest for the trees, and letting procedure get in the way of common sense. The whole point of our 3RR/1RR/0RR rules is to prevent edit-wars. We want to prevent a situation where people are fighting back and forth over content. If a person removing information isn't challenged, if they're not clearly trying to undo the efforts of another editor in such a way that a conflict is going to occur, then what are you enforcing? We're supposed to be preventing disruption and fostering consensus-building, not enforcing rules because we think that's what the rules say. -- Atama頭 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What he said. BMK (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Atama. That's the problem I keep seeing, editors receiving blocks for violating 3R or edit-warring but the editor and the admin disagree on what counts as a "revert". Considering that admins vary in their interpretation of what constitutes a revert, some editors receiving blocks have rightly become confused and demanded specific explanations and diffs of reverts...sometimes they are provided, other times, not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions were a compromise to Full page protection. Violations should not be tolerated or it weakens the ability to achieve consensus on both the topic and posting rule. Violators should be swiftly prevented from damaging the article or, more broadly, the project. please feel free to create blocks, topic or interaction bans as necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• And let God sort them out! Drmies (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy militia

The related Bundy militia article, which is at AfD, is also having issues. Major section are being removed and replaced. This probably is affecting the integrity of that AfD. Since I have edited the article, I am not the best person to review the edits and determine if any action is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

wiki-stalking/harassment by Volunteer Marek

User:Volunteer Marek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been following me around various articles and reverting my changes. I believe that he is doing this to make my experience on wikipedia intolerable. It seems evident to me that he has made it a habit of looking at my edit history for the sole purpose of reverting my edits, as he has never edited in many of these articles prior to the reverts, or after. In the following examples, he reverts me, having never edited the article before, and then maybe makes some small followup edits pertaining to the same material before disappearing.

Sergey Aksyonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff0

RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff1

Jamestown Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff2

Larry King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff3

This is compounded by his long history of editing warring with me and disruptive behavior in general, which I already made a note of when he recently accused me of personally attacking him[105]. While I was blocked (not for a personal attack on him), my complaints went seemingly unnoticed. Since my return from that block, he has continued with the stalking (two of my only three edits before tonight fell into that category, see: diff2 and diff3).

Moreover, he also made a completely baseless accusation of me socking[106], without a single piece of evidence, except for a vague allusion to using "unreliable sources", which I can only guess is a reference to RT, a very popular news source that in no way could in of itself suggest socking.

I don't really care if he's blocked or warned or whatever, I'm not out for blood and this isn't for revenge. I just want to be able to go back to editing wikipedia without having him breathing down my neck at every turn. LokiiT (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm no fan of VM, but his reverts you list above look reasonable to me. You appear to be editing with a fairly strong WP:POV (at least in those diffs) and his edits, IMO, are getting back to a more WP:NPOV. Hobit (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Hobit How is adding "self-proclaimed President" or "Putin moved to takeover Crimea" or a paragraph about a news station being propaganda in the lead NPOV? Either way, it's not about content. It's the fact that he's trolling through my edit history to make my time here miserable, and falsely accusing me of misconduct with no evidence. LokiiT (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• [107] is clear -- and unfortunately it does not reflect well on Lokiit at all. Collect (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

[108] is clear as well, and doesn't reflect well on Volunteer Marek (old user name Radeksz). It wouldn't be the first time he engaged in a stalking and personal attacking campaign against editors who disagree with his POV.B01010100 (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• The preceding comment seems actionable per WP:BOOMERANG - unwarranted PA. Has a warning to B01010100 been issued? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Those diffs don't seem to indicate a problem. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they do indicate a problem, but it's more boomerang-style...but not a significant enough boomerang quite yet for action the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal abuse and malicious allegations.

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has taken to merging a pair of articles incorrectly such that the edit history of the source article is lost. That is not the subject of this ANI (though may become the subject of a separate ANI).

Since a discussion of the corect method of merging articles (helpfully spelt out at [[WP:MERGE) is not directly relevant to improving the article, I placed a note on Wtshymanski's talk page which I am assured is the correct thing to do [109]. (I used an incorrect link to the procedure but subsequently provided the correct one [110].) There followed a derogatory post [111], the main abuse being in the eit summary, "sniping from cover is always easier". IP address users are far from anonymous unlike his user account name which is virtually untraceable.

Wtsymanski deleted the note from his talkpage [112]. The deletion itself is not a problem - I assume that is evidence that the note has been read. What the problem is, is the further abuse and the allegation that went into the edit summary, "rv anon harassment" (my emphasis). I do not believe that such unfounded allegations are warranted when any user attempts to discuss something being done incorrectly on another user's talk page. It is clear that this user is falling far short of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY and is certainly not providing a welcoming environment to those editors who chose not to use registered accounts. AFAIAA, Wikipedia has no problem with editors not registering. 85.255.235.227 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Unless this is part of a larger pattern, I'm inclined to think this is more a content dispute than a civility issue that requires admin action. Looking at the page, the merge is a rather odd thing considering he opposed it on one page then supported on the other, then just did the merge without a lot of discussion. That, and as you point out he didn't do the attribution properly. That could be corrected even after the fact with a null edit, although that isn't ideal. As for using the term "harassment", it isn't polite but I'm not inclined to take action over it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a pattern that has gone on for years. Wtshymanski is obsessed with (usually poor) merges. If we're lucky, he might sometimes note in an edit summary that he's pasting in content from elsewhere. I don't recall him ever tagging the talk page, as convention requires. Apparently he's "to be commended" for even this little concession. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I will note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski does exist, although I am not convinced it is completely relevant here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It has to be acknowledged that in the light of recent editing history, this allegation is a one off event and does not warrant further discussion. Although Wtshymanski does have a long history of biting IP address editors, he has been keeping his head well below the parapet of late, and for that he is to be commended.

However, the manner in which he merges articles is another matter. He has been told many times by many users of the necessity of correctly tagging the talk pages of both the source and target article with the {{mergedfrom...}} and {{mergedto...}} tags in order to make the edit history of the source article(s) easily accesible. Unfortunately Wtshymanski resolutely refuses to do it. Although experienced editors may be aware of how to find the hidden edit history, they can only do so if they know it exists in the first place. The Wtshymanski trade mark edit summary of "merging; contains or contained text from <whatever>, see that page for contributions history" is grossly inadequate as that edit summary soon gets buried in the edit summaries that follow. Less experienced users may not be aware of how to view it.

I believe that the opportunity should be taken to try and persuade Wtshymanski to do the merges properly (or not at all). I note your point about tidying up the merge afterwards, but the quantity of merges carried out by this user would require someone to follow his edit trail and continually add the missing tags - far from an ideal solution and why should anyone have to? The ideal solution is for the merges to be done properly in the first place. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I like full histmerges, which (unfortunately) requires an admin to do, ie: delete the target by moving the bad article over ontop of the target, then restore the target's history and revert to which ever version you want. Then you have the history of both articles combined into one article and the new redirect has no history. If someone just asks and is willing to restore to a proper version, most admin are happy to do that. It only takes a few minutes. For us to do that, however, it requires a clear consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit comment includes the required statement of the form "See page <foo> for edit history" which is all that is needed to link the edit history of the merged page to former contributions; the former edit history is still there. Can anyone recommend a reason to keep two pages, one titled "electric machines" and the other one "electrical machines" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That is more of a discussion for the talk page, although I would agree that it does seem like a likely merge candidate. And merging is a little more complicated than you are making it out to be. You need to review WP:MERGE for the proper procedure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that the denial of making any allegation is buried in the edit summary. Accusing someone of 'harassment' when all they are doing is attempting to discuss a failure to follow procedure is a malicious and unfounded allegation. The comment about the edit history being in the edit summary is wholly inadequate as several people have agreed here. 212.183.128.63 (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, are you the same person as the IP 85.255.235.227 above and the IPs that participated in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski ? People's edit history is shredded and opaque when they don't register accounts. In other words, is this part of a long running dispute between you and Wtshymanski ? Knowing the context might help in resolving the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, my IP address changes every time I log on (over which I have no control). I am the user who posted the comments signed by 85.255.235.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have no knowledge of any long running disputes. I am a somewhat occasional editor who has made a few modest contributions over several years. I have no desire to create an account because I am having enough difficulty keeping track of usernames and passwords without adding to the problem if I don't have to. 212.183.128.63 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User reverting and vandalize an article

Hello. The user Darraj14 changed twice the content of the page Australia (Modern Family) on the reviews section from "mixed" to "positive" (here is the history of the page). I reverted their edits and left them a message on their talk page about it and their answer was a new vandalism on the page with a "personal" message instead of discussing at the talk page. TeamGale 13:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@TeamGale: I don't see anything so unusual that an incident report is warranted. If the edits were true vandalism, WP:AIV would be the better place to report after a full sequence of warnings. (IMO, the only vandalism was this addition of an inline message.) If (s)he violated the three revert rule, WP:AN3 would be the place to file the report. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The user just left this message on my talk page. TeamGale 13:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• The editor's edit history is a mix of well meaning and pure garbage edits. Not sure what to make of this. The threat to sockpuppet doesn't help him, and honestly, is a bit empty headed if you know how SPI works. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, their edits might not be a serious violation...what about the message on my talk page? The user clearly show their intentions. Not only they are using/planning to use sockpuppets by using it as a threat in case someone blocks them, they also see the editing on WP as a joke. Neither that is serious violation? For me as an editor, those kind of users are the kind that "ruins" edits other users do who want to contribute and offer to WP. TeamGale 09:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. And idle threat to sock by itself is meaningless. Calling editing on Wikipedia "a joke" isn't against policy. Many people feel that way. What we block them for is creating sockpuppets, and when they turn the joke into vandalism. We can't block them for their thoughts. That said, I am keeping an eye out, as plenty of their edits are vandalism, and I will block if that continues. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks TeamGale 13:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Breach of 1RR sanctions

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.

---

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

Talk:Bundy_standoff/General_Sanctions

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

• Revert #1 [113]
• Revert #2 [114]

Cwobeel (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Cwobeel:

Relisted at the administrator's noticeboard for edit warring. (1RR violations are as acceptable as general 3RR violations on that page.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:40, 27 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.

LightandDark2000

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 LightandDark2000 was recently blocked for disruptive behavior. Seems like they are yet another incarnation of FanforClarl, or HoshiNoKaabii2000, or Brightify, or whomever the true sockmaster is. Brightify (LightandDark, get it?) + HoshiNoKaabii2000 = LightandDark2000 would be one duck clue. I'm requesting some admin attention here to help revert their edits. They've done a bunch of questionable page moves, and some other complicated and disruptive edits lately. I seem to recall that Admins might have some tools handy to facilitate this process. Also, if there is a "next step" in elevating attention to this operator, I would like to encourage that--the user(s) has/have been disruptive long enough, apparently rangeblocks are not possible, CheckUsers haven't quite linked all of the related accounts, there's some question as to where these edits are originating from, and the various accused socks are starting to mesh into one another via behavioral adaptations. There is no reason why this relatively green editor would/could have a comprehensive understanding or problem with the various socks listed, affected, as far as I can tell. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI, "HoshiNoKaabii" is the Romanization of the Nintendo game series featuring the character Kirby. ("Hoshi" means "star" in Japanese, "Kaabii" is "Kirby", hence "Kirby of the Stars".) In case you're trying to use names to find some commonality between these accounts. -- Atama頭 07:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Atama. Based on the protests at the user's talk page, I'm open to the possibility that I have misidentified a user as a sock, in which case, this should likely be closed, and/or I should take this to WP:SPI. However, I would prefer an admin or two look into this, since the user did perform a variety of questionable edits which may still need to be reverted/repaired. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:08, 26 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.

86.82.178.199 adding "further reading"

86.82.178.199 is adding the same two books to a bunch of articles in a new "further reading" section. They may add something to some of the articles but it seems unlikely two references are relevant in such disparate articles as Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association (self-explanatory organization) and Shūsui Kōtoku (a Japanese anarchist). Could someone look into this? Helpsome (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Continuous addition of weakly sourced controversial content by IP

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours

• 173.176.42.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continued disruptive editing after final warning. IP had started doing this on 26 April, has added lot of controversial content to various articles in a short span of time without any sources. This got reverted by multiple editors and me, was given multiple warnings and stopped after the final one. Other than some rather uncivil responses like "Just accept the facts" and mass blanking of other content, the only improvement in the edits were citing Wikipedia itself or weakly sourcing it with the same personal analysis.

Oh, and made one sort-of death threat on this article talk page here.

Today's disruptive editing were on those same pages and some new ones. All this content is related to the Canadian government.

• Censorship of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Political abuse of psychiatry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rosalie Abella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ‎
  • Racism in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Note: Other users involved in this, I've not checked the edits here. Please take a look.)

Yesterday

• Human rights in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Decolonization of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the AIV report, I have blocked this user for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks and reverting of edits without addressing in Talk to gain consensus

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

---

Coretheapple has made repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses throughout Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, while making changes to Fort Lee lane closure scandal that are in contradiction to previous Talk discussions.

It was agreed at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality & Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion that details of Zimmer allegations would be included in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. This was agreed to even though it was acknowledged that the two separate scandals would be investigated by the same state and federal authorities, and other organizations.

It was just addressed again in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart in which Coretheapple raised the issue of whether details of Zimmer allegations should be added. I reminded everyone that Zimmer allegations should be contained within the other article. Coretheapple made no further comments about a statement for inclusion in the Fort Lee article that reached consensus between JackGavin and myself with no reference to Zimmer and a link to the "Governorship of Chris Christie" section.

Instead, Coretheapple went into the Fort Lee article and started adding detail about Zimmer allegations.

I opened up Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid to address content based on Coretheapple's addition of details about Zimmer allegations.

Coretheapple responded with the same points they made in a variety of Talk discussions that did not accept those arguments. I addressed each and every point that Coretheapple made about adding more content about Zimmer allegations and explained why they were not needed and that it contradicted consensus reached in past Talk discussions. Coretheapple began to make personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses.

Coretheapple's latest personal attacks and denigrating comments against me in their Talk discussions included their entries of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of edit comments.

I repeatedly requested Coretheapple in that Talk discussion and my recent History edit comments, (i.e. [115] and [116] ) to address their arguments in Talk about content additions for details about Zimmer allegations. Instead, Coertheapple either ignored my Talk requests and History edit comments or made more personal attacks on the Talk discussion page, and then continued to add details about Zimmer allegations (see [117] and [118] ).

Instead of complying with my requests to address content, Coretheapple has continued with personal attacks on the Fort Lee Talk discussions and History edit comments in the Fort Lee article.

As clearly shown in Additional details for Zimmer allegations, Coretheapple is in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus, as they did not reach any consensus and ignored and contradicted consensus reached in past discussions in complaints, Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion, and content issues about Zimmer allegations that I previously cited above.

I have tried to work with Coretheapple in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus based on Coretheapple's bold additions for additional Zimmer details.

Based on evidence of Coretheapple's unacceptable and disruptive edits in contradiction to consensus reached at past Talk discussions and their objectionable personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses or edits, I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I have found Wondering55 to be one of the most difficult people when it comes to a) working with others and b) taking advice. Astronomically difficult. As an admin, I've just had shake my head and say "WTF" quietly to myself many times DP 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, rather than address the facts that I present for this particular case, DP has mis-characterized my past efforts and clearly good faith efforts for this particular case, and continues to make negative assumptions about me in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. When a Wikipedia administrator has to refer to another person's good faith efforts, as demonstrated in this specific case, as "WTF", rather than address the specific facts and actions by another editor with clear evidence of personal attacks against me and my comments that appears to violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines that I presented, there is something seriously wrong. Wondering55 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh, you're right ... something is seriously wrong. Remember, when you file at ANI, your own behaviour will come under the microscope as well DP 18:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I welcome review of my behavior for this particular instance and these particular facts. To try and confuse the issues with a debate on other past issues would be disingenuous and very time consuming. So far, I have not seen any constructive, neutral points of view about the facts of this particular situation. Wondering55 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on my Talk comment of "Let's be reasonable" and my subsequent editing to give Corethapple practically all of their requested revisions with only one brief mention of Zimmer's name, Coretheapple goes in and adds more details about the allegations and puts back Zimmer comments about the investigation into her allegations, none of which were agreed to in the Talk.

Coretheapple's changes below were removed since they were not made in accordance with WP:BRD, as clearly shown in the Talk discussion. Coretheapple was requested to go back to Talk to address these issues based on [119].

[120]; [121]; [122]

Coretheapple ignored this request and put back details below into the article.

[123]; [124]

When those changes were reverted by me with another request to go Talk, Coretheapple simply reverted the changes and claimed that their revert details "are explained on the talk page" without indicating that the explanations, which were contrary to all past Talk discussions in several Talk topics, were not accepted on the Talk page.

[125]

In essence, Coretheapple reverted previously agreed to modifications three times within a day's time without addressing or gaining any consensus, as requested in my History edit comments and Talk. This does not even include Coretheapple's other previous edits regarding the addition of details about Zimmer allegations that were not in accordance with past Talk discussions with other editors and Additional details for Zimmer allegations. Wondering55 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just from an uninvolved editor's perspective, not many people will want read through all this text and weigh the merits of your complaint. Can you boil it down to two paragraphs and 3 diffs that best illustrate the point you are making? I'm only saying this because I assume you want editors to respond to your posting here and you're demanding a lot of attention from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In Additional details about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, Coretheapple's repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses culminated in their final inaccurate and denigrating insults of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of Talk edit comments, as shown below.

[126]](April 12 13:34 - 14:09)

Those comments were made in response to my previous Talk discussion where I indicated "Let's be reasonable" on April 9 that was followed by my April 12 response below, which included "In a spirit of cooperation, I updated article to show the statement below, which incorporates all of Corethepple's revisions with a brief mention of Zimmer."

[127] April 12 4:01)

Other examples:

[128] (My April 9 15:36 response to previous personal attack about my comments as "insane" and "blah/blah reply")

[129] (My April 9 16:54 response to previous personal attack of my comments as "blah/blah fix")

I had repeatedly stated in that Talk that further details, which were removed, about Zimmer belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation as per consensus in past Talk discussions:

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality { See [130] (February 16 00:08) }

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart { Starting at line 514 in [131] (April 7 15:28 to 17:06) } Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple made no objections.

Coretheapple continued to make changes to the article in contradiction to those Talk discussions.

Coretheapple's changes for adding more Zimmer details were reverted in accordance with Bold Revert and Discuss with a request to address their proposal in Talk to see if they could gain any consensus for adding details. Instead, Coretheapple simply reverted these changes on three separate occasions within a days time between April 11 & 12 (if needed, see my previous response at 20:53, 12 April 2014 for diff examples) and put back all of the Zimmer details without any further Talk discussion.

I responded in Talk that Coretheapple's actions were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus and that Coretheapple's final retort contained so many personal attacks against me and my comments. They violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette.

The changes made by Coretheapple for adding details about Zimmer allegations in contradiction to past Talk discussion and no consensus for including them based on the latest Talk should be revised.

I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues rather than any personal attacks or denigrating comments like Coretheapple has made. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Asked to "boil it down to 2 paragraphs and 3 diff's" and we get a wall-o-text. Helpful indeed, and indicative of behaviour so far DP 10:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More denigrating comments and personal attacks by DP rather than focusing on the facts. DP continues to question my good faith efforts and behavior in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. For some reason, DP has a very biased view of me. That is not right, particular by a Wikipedia administrator.

It should be clearly seen that my updated presentation makes it much easier to focus on the facts. DP's unnecessary claims of wall-o-text is clearly contradicted by that guideline that addresses "overly long unformatted statements". My clearly outlined and focused presentation with very short paragraphs is in accordance with the guideline's recommendation to "distill one's thoughts into bite size pieces."

As per the very constructive request, the first 2 paragraphs clearly highlighted the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that clearly support my position. That is all the administrators need to focus on regarding my request to block Coretheapple based on their personal attacks.

As requested, I provided the diff's for 3 long past Talk discussions, so that administrators could quickly see past consensus that contradicted Coretheapple's proposal to add details about Zimmer's allegations into Fort Lee lane closure scandal rather than include those details in Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple was previously requested to comply with this consensus in one of these referenced Talk discussions, without any objections by Coretheapple.

I also referenced 3 Fort Lee article diffs to show how Coretheapple repeatedly added details about Zimmer allegations without discussing or gaining consensus in Talk in violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus.

The facts are clear and my updated presentation focuses on the key information with very clear diffs that should make it much easier for a constructive and fair review by Wikipedia administrators.

While not as blatant, Coretheapple is continuing to make condescending remarks about my behavior and editing, rather than neutral constructive comments. Wondering55 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• The above Mt. Everest of text concerns approx. 15 words in the article, and my efforts to lure this editor into a discussion of the merits have been met by the kind of tactics that we see here. Wondering55 is especially emotive on this because he was blocked for edit warring based on a complaint I brought a few days ago, during the course of which his access to his own talk page was blocked. I am almost literally out the door for a few days and cannot respond further, but I am sure that Wondering55 will have plenty more to say on the "consensus" that did not exist and the terrible "personal attacks" to which I have subjected him, most recently concerning some comments concerning overuse of the word "indicate" in the article which didn't involve him at all and were not directed to him or any editor. I am not the first editor who has had this kind of encounter with Wondering55, and I am sure that I won't be the last. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, rather than focus on the facts of this particular situation, Coretheapple continues with their inaccurate denigrating comments of "Mt. Everest of text", my supposed "tactics", which incorrectly implies bad faith on my part, and "especially emotive", and brings up totally unrelated incidents to this particular situation, which stands on its own merits. The diffs for the 3 past Talk discussions that I provided clearly show the "consensus" of editors that Coretheapple has repeatedly ignored. Coretheapple's personal attacks are very clear in the first diff that I provided in my updated presentation (06:38, 13 April 2014). I am not even sure why Coretheapple even raised the issue of the overuse of the word "indicated" in the article since I never thought or indicated anywhere in this Talk or the Fort Lee article Talk that Coretheapple's comments were personally directed at me. I have not brought up any other past questionable behavior by Coretheapple since I wanted to focus on the clear facts of this situation where Coretheapple has made personal attacks and inaccurate/inappropriate denigrating comments against me and my editing.

There have been close to 200 editors in the Fort Lee article. Coretheapple has been the only editor to continually ask for additional details about Zimmer's allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief for Hoboken that is separate from the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. All other editors agreed that those details, with a link to that other article, belong in Hoboken relief funds investigation, along with many other scandals that have been publicized as people have looked into other aspects of the Christie administration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Coretheapple had added around 55 words (fifty-five) about Zimmer and her allegations in the article in their past edits in contradiction to consensus and Talk discussions. Coretheapple's final edit has added 41 words to the article. All other editors were satisfied with no additional words about Zimmer and her allegations beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation. Wondering55 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Am I the only one thinking that the WMF server and bandwidth bill doesn't need this user? Guy (Help!) 7:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • No, Guy, I'm another. Of course the most precious commodity the user is squandering isn't server space but the attention and energy of other volunteers. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

My updated request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 has 440 words, not including links to the diffs or Talk pages. It is in line with requests below that were answered without discussions about their length.

Disruption and malicious editing – 502 words

Brews_ohare, Snowded and others – 490 words

Disruption and malicious editing – 401 words

User:Ohconfucius – 781 words

First 2 paragraphs, which only have 160 words, highlighted personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that support my position. That is not time consuming in order to focus on my request to block Coretheapple based on their attacks and comments.

Remainder of request addresses Coretheapple's violations of BRD, Edit warring, and Consensus that led to these attacks and denigrating comments, instead of focusing on content, as I requested. I suggested that Coretheapple's edits, which added between 41 to 55 words to the Fort Lee scandal article should be undone since there was no consensus and their revisions contradicted agreements and consensus in 3 past Talk discussions in which there were to be no words about these allegations, beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a review based on the facts that I have presented in my request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 that is within the length of other requests that were addressed. Thanks for your consideration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved Admin, I took a look not only at the section of the Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal indicated, but at a random selection of other edits on the article page, & exchanges on the talk page. I could find no explicitly stated "consensus" there. My opinion, however, is that Wondering55 does respond to comments by others with impenetrable slabs of text. Stating an obvious fact is not a personal attack; truth is always a defense against libel. I also would like to point out Coretheapple's last response to Wondering55 included the passage: "If you want to engage in a discussion of the merits of adding 15 words to the text I'll talk about it with you. But if it's more personal attacks on me, more wall-o-text wikilawyering and boldface ranting and hooting and hollering, then I'm not going to waste my time." I interpret these sentences to mean Coretheapple is about to stop editing the article entirely. Seeing how that user made only 3 edits after that, I think I'm right about that.

And even if Coretheapple was rude, then gave up editing the article? What more does Wondering55 want done? I'm thinking the best solution here instead might focus on Wondering55. -- llywrch (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple has not given up on editing the article.

I want to know if Coretheapple can be blocked for personal attacks and denigrating comments (like those quoted and shown in the diffs below) that are simply opinions, and not facts, in the one cited Fort Lee discussion. I continually asked Coretheapple to focus on content without this derogatory language, and yet Coretheapple persisted. Coretheapple even edited one of their saved responses, which already had derogatory language, just to add more derogatory language. If Coretheapple cannot be blocked, will this type of language and behavior be allowed, or are there other alternatives to prevent or address this situation? Wikipedia and professional environments frown on denigrating opinions among colleagues.

• "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" in their Talk History edit comments when responding to me.

• [132]] (April 12 diff with multiple revisions by Corethepaple with the most significant derogatory comments)

• [133] (My April 9 15:36 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)

• [134] (My April 9 16:54 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)

This situation occurred while I addressed content and suggested that a significant portion of Coretheapple's revisions could be included. I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple. When Coretheapple could not gain consensus for their entire proposal, Coretheapple started with their derogatory comments and repeatedly added details (with up to 55 extra words in various revisions, and ending up with 41 extra words in final revision) about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken issues to the Fort Lee article rather than just refer readers to Hoboken relief funds investigation, in contradiction to past agreements among editors (as shown below) for the Fort Lee article.

• Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014

• Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality (February 16 diff)

• Starting at line 514 in Legal representation chart (April 7 diff) Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple made no objections. Wondering55 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Mudslinging galore! Too many Wall-o-Text accusations and Attacks... Lets tone this down please. Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading through the links that he provides, I come away with the conclusion that A) Wondering55 does not understand how article forks work; B) He does not understand the meaning of consensus, C) He does not understand personal attacks, and D) He just doesn't get that "wall of text" is both accurate and apt in describing his tactics. I know Coretheapple from other articles, not this one, and have always found him to be civil, and he shows no evidence of being anything but in this instance. I agree with other editors that the issue here is Wondering55 and his aggressive, attacking, generally clueless and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I simply pointed out denigrating comments made by Coretheapple based on the facts. There are no personal attacks by me. Coretheapple's personal attacks in the referenced talk discussion and in their response above are covered by Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Consensus and agreements were clear in the cited Talk diffs above. Previous editors, except for Coretheapple who was told by more than one editor, knew that it was agreed that details about Zimmer allegations would be shown in Hoboken relief funds investigation.

Coretheapple was unable to get anyone to support their proposal to add details about Zimmer allegations into the Fort Lee article, so there was no consensus for their proposal. Yet, Corethapple went ahead and added these details in contradiction to Bold Revert and Discuss.

There is no evidence or facts in the cited Fort Lee discussion that I had the claimed wall-o-text based on Wikiepedia's wall-o-text.

There is no evidence or facts to support that there was any "agressive, attacking, or generally clueless WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior", which are clearly denigrating comments without any substance.

When I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple, it clearly contradicts those baseless charges.

Clearly, some people do not understand what it means to be civil, when shown comments about me and my responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply"

Whether Coretheapple was civil in any other Talk discussions, has absolutely no bearing on the presented facts for the cited Fort Lee talk discussion where they were not civil. Wondering55 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are not happy with the responses you have received here, and have commenced a discussion on the same issues at the Teahouse. You were warned not to forum-shop, which you deny doing. You were also advised to "take to heart the excellent advice that a wide range of experienced editors have offered you in recent days," to which you responded in the negative. Would you like to continue the discussion here, or would you like to pursue it there, or is it your intent to discuss your grievances simultaneously in this forum and at the Teahouse? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Figureofnine, you are being very kind to Wondering55. A less kind person -- like me -- would at this point make the following points: (1) speaking as an Admin, I'm not going to penalize Coretheapple for anything he posted so far in this case; (2) speaking as a third party, I seriously doubt any other Admin is about to penalize Coretheapple; & (3) speaking as both, if anyone is to be penalized here, I expect it will most likely be Wondering55. I strongly advise Wondering55 to accept the fact that not only he/she will not be getting any satisfaction here, but that he/she has dug himself into a very deep hole & should stop digging -- if nothing else. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm struck by the absence of understanding. He just hasn't a clue. If you go to the archive of his talk page, where he appears to deposit old and new posts that don't make him look very good, he lectures an administrator who blocked him a week or so ago. [135] "Hopefully, you will find lessons learned here for your next administrator review." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So far I have seen too many clues from too many editors that seem to be engaged in unsubstantiated opinions and very misleading and complete distortions of my actions. They have not focused on my original request based on the facts, which I have presented that contradict their claims, and the issues of whether repeated denigrating comments made by another editor violate Wikipedia guidelines for civility, etiquette, and no personal attacks. Rather than address those facts and the very guidelines that tell users not to engage in that type of behavior, all of this is being ignored and additional inaccurate claims and denigrating comments are being made that contradict and ignore the facts.

I do not have the time to waste to respond to these further inaccurate claims and denigrating comments.

I seriously doubt if any editor on this topic was faced with repeated comments about them and their responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" (none of which are accurate based on the facts), as Coretheapple responded to me, that they would say that is acceptable language and behavior and do nothing about it.

I have been very civil in my editing and Talk discussions where I address content issues, including any contradictions with the facts from reliable sources, and not personalities. If needed, I point out actions and responses by editors that do not seem to comport with acceptable behavior and general etiquette, all of which are further supported by various Wikipedia guidelines. Wondering55 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced Wikipedian who has used Template: Welcomeg -- & related templates -- take a look at the edits Wondering55 has made to them in the last few days? I may be prejudiced here, but I doubt that his/her edits have improved the text in that template. -- llywrch (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I use {{Welcomeg}} all the time - and their edits turned it into a utterly useless piece of garbage, so I have reverted to an older version...and added it to my watchlist  the panda  ₯’ 09:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

add...which means I have had to undo some of their other major cockups related to welcome templates. I'll WP:AGF that they were trying to help, but those types of changes to core templates need far more that being WP:BOLD - they have evolved over years of reasoning  the panda  ₯’ 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to revert {{Welcomeg}} a bit deeper ([136]). - DVdm (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I consider myself an experienced Wikipedian, & I wouldn't have dared to have made some of the changes the OP made without getting a second opinion first. ::sigh:: So what is the proper method to handle a problem of competence while acknowledging that the individual is acting in good faith? -- llywrch (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note:

• Wondering55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daily.drink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Enforcer5151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Daily.drink and Enforcer5151 are two new users (or are they?) whose userpages were redirected to their talk pages ([137] and [138]) by Wondering55, followed by requests on their talk pages ([139] and [140]) for comments about Wondering55's proposed and dismissed version of template {{welcomeg}}. Can someone have a look at this and comment whether this is appropriate? - DVdm (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if this discussion about the Welcomeg greeting template was continued at Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where it rightfully belongs.

All of these content issues about the updated version of the Welcomeg template could easily have been raised during the 6 weeks of updates that I addressed in a Talk discussion on that page where there was absolutely no consensus or additional feedback to not allow these updates to be incorporated. I was entitled to be "bold" in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and assume there were no objections or second opinions about my proposed updates.

All of this outrage could have easily been prevented if all of these new responders had simply addressed their concerns in that Talk discussion for a greeting template that they should be watching.

I certainly would not have made any past updates for the greeting template if these content issues had been previously raised, or would consider making any future updates without further discussion, feedback, and consensus based on Wikipedia guidelines. I am a responsible Wikipedia user that knows how Wikipedia works and treats other users and their content updates, no matter how outrageous, with respect and a civil discourse.

Others using words and phrases like "utterly useless piece of garbage", " major cockups", and "ugh" are not conducive to a civil discourse about content and appear to contradict the facts of the content, Talk discussions, and Wikipedia guidelines about civil discourse.

Recent editors continue to spend an awful lot of time focusing on my actions, which were made in good faith for legitimate improvements, as if they were a nefarious means at worst or botched good faith efforts at best, rather than focus on the content issues. They then try to link unrelated past behavior to the specific content issues that I address. If every user, who had made a past faux pas, was called up on their past mistakes every time they wanted to address a new content issue, that would have a very chilling effect on needed legitimate Talk discussions.

Please stop making inaccurate allegations about my competence since they are not warranted. All of this negativity is very, very concerning to me and should be concerning to responsible Wikipedia administrators.

Focus on NPOV content issues without derisive and foul language, rather than unwarranted comments about my personal actions and there will be a vast improvement to the discourse and needed actions for Wikipeida article improvements. Hope to see all of you on Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where this discussion rightfully belongs. Wondering55 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This Talk discussion should be closed out by an administrator since it is no longer focusing on the original request I made about responses I was receiving to content issues about the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. Wondering55 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's showing that they community might just have to review all of your edits on this project. You seem to have a history of falsifying consensus, being overly-bold when consensus is clearly against you, bizarre arguments, a wholly ineffective understanding of WP:CIVIL so that you twist it to try to be in your favour (which, by the way, has become a personal attack through making false statements). Our ability to assume good faith is now wholly stretched by a review of the mere surface of your edits. You've done a great job proving my very first statement in this thread to be true  the panda  ₯’ 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "It would have been helpful if this discussion about the Welcomeg greeting template was continued at Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where it rightfully belongs": I don't think this is a discussion about the template. This is a discussion about user conduct. I haven't read the remainder of your reply per obvious wp:TL;DR, and probably building on the misconception in that first statement anyway. - DVdm (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda continues to make completely false and inaccurate statements. The facts clearly show that I have no history of falsifying consensus, being overly-bold by going against consensus, no bizarre arguments (there is that avoidable denigrating comment again), no twisting of facts in my favor, and no personal attacks through false statements. I was involved with a misunderstanding about content issues that I repeatedly tried to work out with editors and made a mistake in unnecessarily reverting them. I have a very good understanding of what it means to act or not act with civility, and not make any false statements or twist anything.

None of these accusations should ever have been raised since they are completely inaccurate. This is beginning to look like a twisted way and an inappropriate excuse to investigate me and further harass me rather than simply focus on content issues. The conduct of those making inaccurate and derisive statements certainly leaves a lot to be desired. I am not asking for an investigation of their behavior or comments by others about how they have behaved.

The facts can be twisted any way needed to make a completely inaccurate analysis. Rather than addressing the original request for this Talk discussion, editors are now using this Talk discussion as an excuse to simply pile on unnecessary and inaccurate derisive comments about me in a very intimidating manner.

I am satisfied that viewpoints from all needed parties to my original request about the Talk discussion in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal have been adequately expressed.

It is time to move on to other issues. All of the new issues about what I have done regarding Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template should be addressed in that Talk page, unless editors have ulterior motives.

Differences of opinions about content issues and the updates that I made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines can best be addressed on that page. Wondering55 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

In regards to DVdm's previous comment, my previous response was not obvious wp:TL;DR since I was able to very slowly read my response, which is broken up into clear, concise, and well-organized short statements, in 75 seconds. DVdm would do well to heed the advice from that guideline: "it is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing". All of my subsequent statements, which support my original first statement based on the facts, from my response were conveniently ignored and not addressed by DVdm. Editors are not following Wikipedia guidelines and are shopping for additional forums to vent their unsubstantiated anger against me.

I continue to offer my good faith efforts to work with them, even if we have differences of opinion on how to achieve results. So far, I have not seen any reciprocal offers. Let's move on. I have listened carefully to try and understand some underlying concerns contained in the editor's responses. I will do my best to try and work and with them if they give me a fair chance. Wondering55 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You would do well to read the box on top of wp:TL;DR. It is not a guideline. Not even close. It is a handy, concise, and humorous way to tell someone that they are making too much noise . - DVdm (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I second that, and if Wondering55 is thinking of expanding his reading list, I can also recommend Wikipedia:ANI Advice, particularly points #1 and #2.
Eventually, Wondering, people will get bored enough with watching you repeatedly post mountains of rambling, irrelevant text about how everyone else is the problem and you are not, to do something about it, and curb your disruption. Your style is not new, it's boring, old, and predictable, and the patience of people who are here to do something productive is limited.
In short - we've all seen this sort of crap before. Stop it, or have it stopped for you. I hope that's not a "denigrating comment" or "personal attack" or "failing to assume your good faith", but who would notice in your deluge of such nonsense?
Stop it. Grow up. Edit in accordance with community norms, or stop editing. We're mostly bored with you now. Begoon ^talk 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dangerous Panda makes a good point above re personal attacks through making false statements. Wondering55 has been trashing me throughout this discussion, as he has previously (look at the links he presents), and he shows absolutely zero sign of letting up or understanding that what he does is wrong. I have never attacked him personally, but he has attacked me repeatedly. In fact, nobody has attacked him personally. People comment on his contributions, which indeed have been "wall of text" rantings, for that is what does, that is how he contributes, that is how he disrupts talk pages. He responds by attacking the messenger. I really question whether this editor "does not understand" WP:NPA as someone suggested above; more likely he just willfully violates it.

This editor seems to have a problem comprehending things. We all make mistakes. I just made a biggie in an article on a play; I added original research in the synopsis which threatened to derail it becoming a DYK. That was pointed out. Fine. No problem. I fixed it. Over. Has Wondering55, with all the things he gets wrong, even once admitted that he has actually done something wrong? Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to ANI, but I wonder; could Wondering55 look at the discussion above, about Dicklyon and Duxwing? It seems to have quite a few parallels, and maybe a demonstration of what he's doing could convince him to stop. Origamite^{Please talk here} 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not happening. You have to remember that he initiated this because he felt that he was the wronged party. It was made clear to him at the outset that his behavior was abominable. He responded with wall-o-text rants and forum-shopped to the Teahouse[141], where he was advised not to forum shop, which he denied. After a few days of being told in increasingly vociferous terms that he was flirting with a block, he finally got the message and stopped posting, stomping off with a parting shot that actually he was a victim of forum shopping [142] and that everyone else was to blame[143]. Has this experience put a crimp in his style? Nope. He screwed up a Welcome template and fought like the devil when two admins changed it back, finally stomping off.[144] When he was blocked for 3RR a week or so ago, same response[145]. Now I see he's revert-warring at Fort Lee lane closure scandal again. He reverted all the edits I made a couple of days ago that attempted to clean up the mangled prose in this article, which is a b--ch to read. He is just impervious. With an editor like this you either spend all your time squabbling with his wall-o-text rants or going to drama boards (if he doesn't cry "victim" and take you there himself) or you just give up. Coretheapple (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand; I have read this. Thank you for linking to the pertinent diffs. I'm just trying to get a feel for how nasty the cases on ANI are. (Very.) Also, the unblock requests qualify, in my opinion for a WP:Massive wall of text. Origamite^{Please talk here} 00:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This put me in mind of that discussion, too. Both have something of the elegant inevitability of Greek tragedy about them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The tragedy is the time that has to be diverted from more productive tasks, whether in dealing with wall-o-text rants or having to carry out edits like this to clean up the messes they create. Coretheapple (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Greek tragedy as much as complaining about something minor that WP:BOOMERANGs and hits the complainer right in the face. Origamite^{Please talk here} 12:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, his activity here has certainly put a microscope on him -- which, with telescope-scale posts, is all the more tedious. But will it come back to bite him in some substantial way? You can't ban someone for being insanely verbose and generally lacking in self-awareness, can you? Of course, it seems likely there will be further bans for other types of disruptive behaviour. Wondering, if you read this, you may feel it's just one more person piling but I really feel the best thing that anyone could do for you at present is point out the following -- there's a certain type of personality that feels they can win any argument on which they have a stance they truly believe in, if need be by sheer tenacity alone. Nobody likes that guy. Not even variants of that guy like the other, nearly identical, versions. In it's most productive form, argumentation is actually as collaborative an effort as any other type of human interaction. But you aren't trying to participate in that given and take, to adhere to an utilize those subtle points of reason, psychology, and collegial respect to win over your opposition or at least elegantly counter them in a way that is beneficial to your ends. Instead you are trying to hammer your opponent into submission with unending, but rapidly repeating, arguments. Not only is this unlikely to generate consensus (in the sense of finding a way to move the situation forward), it's likely to complicate many future interactions. And we're not talking garden variety bombastic wikilawyering; volunteers at ANI more or less have to be contributors with a high tolerance for repetitive and long-winded diatribes in those who petition or are the focus of requests here, but I think I can get the full support of near everyone who has had to slog through your responses when I say it's not a wall of text, it's The Great Wall of Text. It's a gold standard. Now retire a champ in that vein and try to look at debate on Wikipedia in a new way. Snow (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

He just wears down people, and look, it's an effective strategy and he shows absolutely no evidence of abandoning it. Were it not for his blundering into ANI and the resulting scrutiny, Template:Welcomeg would have been permanently screwed up, as his lengthy rants had worn down the editors on that page. Even after the intervention of two administrators, it still took extreme effort to deal with his talk page rants and fix the damage he caused. Fort Lee lane closure scandal is now his current theater of operations and requires more eyes. It is a highly trafficked article and it is abysmally written, and the way things are now it is going to stay that way. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

He is pushing the envelope, & I think a plausible argument could be made to ban him simply to protect the Wiki -- especially if he moves outside of one or at most a few related articles. Despite acting in good faith, his acts are driving contributors away. But it will take an Admin who is willing to see the matter thru & risk the consequences: too many Admins have gotten burned handling people like him, & those willing to take a matter like this -- & who are smart enough to be successful at it -- on have never been numerous, & are even more uncommon now. So IMHO he's immune to any serious limitations if we're willing to sacrifice that article to keep him from "contributing" elsewhere. -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Right now I'd be happy if more eyes could be deployed on Fort Lee lane closure scandal. He has worn out everyone except me, and I'm getting there. I believe it is a deliberate strategy. He argues/edit wars about literally anything, and when there is nothing to argue about he makes stuff up and argues about it. Most recently he is trying to enforce a nonexistent standard on use of the "ref name" field in citation templates as used in that particular article.[146] It has to be a rigid format that Wondering55 has designed, upon which he expounds on the talk page. Yes, it drives editors from the article. Yes, it is frustrating. Yes, it is a time suck. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's quiet enough here at the moment, so I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I can certainly sympathize with your frustration, believe me. It may sound cliche, but in this case I really do recommend using the approach of the Aikido master in this case; use simple, direct arguments to deflect the central flaws, as you see them, in his text, let his own energy wear him out. Remember, it takes him time to write these; more than it takes most to read them. And he repeats himself rather a lot, afterall. Let him exert his energy if his arguments aren't getting traction with anybody. He can only drown out so much text from other contributors before a substantial portion of those other editors, even those new on the scene, just mentally mute him, after-all. Snow (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, when he's in full-scale revert mode, it's hard to avoid dealing with him on the talk page. Sort of necessary. But you're right. The main objective now is to get more editors on the page. Preferably some stout lads and lassies with a relish for tackling ungainly articles and improving the writing. We really need that. I've nominated it for GA status, which I know is but a distant dream at the moment, but hopefully will bring a fresh perspective at some point. Hey, I'm trying. Coretheapple (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I can see what he's doing to you there is grinding you into submission. I can see the revert warring is unlikely to stop until you give up. Without 1,000 editors like you Wikipedia will lose. So Wikipedia will lose. This is its achilles heel. Always it will lose to disruption like this. I don't have a solution - I could try to help with this one and I'd fail. We argue a lot about what the problem is. It's this. Plain and simple. A zillion bytes and nothing done. Rinse and repeat. We look the other way. If you want to disrupt, carry on, just make it too tricky for us to care. Post paragraphs. Post pages. Scare us away. Sorry. I wish I could help. It's just broken. Begoon ^talk 16:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I had hoped to get more editors on board to serve as a counterweight, to calm him down and get him to stop clogging the talk page, but that hasn't happened so maybe the solution is more drastic. I find it hard to believe that there is no solution. He does violate policy. His latest mission was to enforce a rigid date format on ref names that are not even visible to the reader! WP:REFNAME was pointed out to him by two editors. Still, the ranting and raving went on. Look, it's not for me to say what to do about this editor. But I do want to note that this is not some backwater but a significant article on a major political controversy (Chris Christie and the GW Bridge traffic jams). He came here, he wasted everyone's time. So now he just goes back to the article where he was misbehaving and the status quo there continues? I find it hard to believe that is the only possible outcome, though I agree it is the most likely. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the lane closures. I live in Australia. I've just seen this sort of crap before from people, and it's doing your article no favours. The guy either edits according to norms (which he obviously isn't), or stops editing. We need to enforce that or the encyclopedia suffers. That's all. The, second to none, biggest problem with wikipedia, is that we're all so scared of actually having an opinion we let warriors like this beat us by default in case we say boo. It's pathetic. It needs to change. I've just noticed a lack of editors here prepared to get onboard with that sentiment. That needs to change too. Sooner rather than later. Begoon ^talk 17:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big content discussion here, obviously, but one of the problems with this article is that it is too long. It just goes on and on. It's a big political controversy in the U.S. but still, it's not written in summary style. Even in the best of circumstances it's hard to get editors to agree to cuts and trims. But when you have an editor who reverts and reverts, usually making things worse, and is willing to argue about literally nothing, the process of improving an article just grinds to a halt. One of the most productive editors on that article just up and left recently. Wondering55 was on his case before I even got there, going back and forth, banning him from his talk page, attacking him, and now he's done. He just gave up. We can't have that. New editors find the talk page spewing so intimidating that it makes them reluctant to contribute, as one new editor pointed out the other day. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Block/ban discussion concerning User:Wondering55

So Guy, Bishonen, Ilywrch, DangerousPanda, and anyone else who appreciates the pain...other than identifying the most obvious tendentious wall of a problem, can we come to some proposal on what to do about it? Personally, I don't like the idea of letting more damage being caused by this user; I'd prefer skipping straight to the most nuclear option available because this sort of tendentious editing is such a time-wasting exercise for existing contributors, and more dangerously, it has the effect of chasing away the limited resources we have too permanently. But, if there's not going to be agreement on that, can we at least agree on a topic ban or a block of some relatively significant duration? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In case there is any doubt about my position, I also agree with the proposal for an indefinite block and think it would be effective; being in the form of a de facto ban, it would be like a ban anyway. I suppose I should also note that I have yet to find a situation where the net outcome for the project has been positive by delaying sanctions in the never-ending wait for a user with these sorts of issues to reach the required level of improvement. Rehabilitation on the English wiki hasn't been successful for this type of issue, and has in fact caused further cuts (read: burn-out) to the resources available here. The community has had more than enough experience with earlier good faith attempts at fixing this type of issue which has repeatedly proved ineffective, and it is simply at the point where it cannot afford to keep making the same mistake. If it is felt by a small minority feel that it is possible for the user to be rehabilitated or that there are some encouraging signs, time can be spent (if not wasted) on that exercise elsewhere and would form reasons in favour of or against a future request for review. But ultimately, there is no need for a risk of further loss or damage being caused here in the meantime. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from articles to do with transport - because he's obviously non-neutral on this.

but

Propose community ban from everything - because this guy is not here to help. It's clear. Begoon ^talk 17:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Block per WP:STFUALREADY, as you say. The unbelievably disproportionate amount of verbiage for a trivial matter on a "scandal" that itself frankly is unbelievably trivial, is a titanic waste of time and effort. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I favour an indefinite block. It's not necessary by any means to assume that the user has bad intentions, but whatever their motives, it has become apparent that they use up our most precious resources (=the time and enthusiasm of our volunteers) without giving any corresponding benefits to the encyclopedia. Let's do it, because it has taken too long. (And just in case the block/ban conundrum should surface here: I'll support whichever gets consensus, but there's really no need to formalize and log a "ban". An indefblock which no admin will undo is a de facto ban.) Bishonen | talk 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Yikes. It took me some time to dig through all the text in the section above but now I'd say that an indef block is in order. As per Bish I don't think we need a formal ban here. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to favor WP:ROPE because he really seemed to take Wondering by surprise that he was not supported here and his own edits didn't pass muster because, if you look at the Fort Lee talk page, it's devolved into a tug-of-war of a few users. He was so caught up with the fate of this one article (and who was "right" and who was "wrong") that he didn't see the big picture of how his own behavior was disruptive. I'm hoping that this is an editor who can get a clue, reflect on what other editors are telling him and moderate his behavior.

I'd just ask that if you do go the way of an indefinite block, please allow the option to review the block after a period of time. Right now, I think the problem is primarily that this editor is way too invested in the articles and pages he edits and he just needs to take a step back. He's already doing that by disengaging from this AN/I conversation which he asked earlier to be closed, before it turned into a dogpile. He could have chosen to continue arguing in this thread but he backed off and I think that's an encouraging sign. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I beg to differ. It was not just one article, and having experienced him in full force before and after a block for edit warring, and before and after what happened here, I would strongly disagree that any behavior change is even remotely in the offing. It's been mentioned above, but you may not have noticed this lengthy discussion on the talk page of the Welcome template. Look at 10:24, 18 April 2014 onwards. This was a knock-down, drag-out fight that he had with two administrators who he had just squabbled with right here, in this very discussion, and after he was told he faced a block. Also take a look at what transpired after he was blocked for edit warring. The post at the bottom, the one that says "Hopefully, you will find lessons learned here for your next administrator review," was posted on the talk page of the administrator who blocked him from his own talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Liz, WP:ROPE is no good here. First, one would need to believe that enough rope to encircle the earth at its equator on 3 foot posts had not already been issued and abused. That's not the case - look at the history from the links above. Second, one would need to agree that a change is likely to occur. It's not. The only change the user has ever made is to the venue, not the behaviour. Absent something, anything, credible from them to indicate even a glimmer of understanding the problems they cause, and some hope they might stop doing so, I really can't see any alternative to just preventing them from continuing. I'm not advocating we should ignore any such sea-change - I'm just saying it would need to actually happen, and any sign of that is utterly absent. Begoon ^talk 03:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• If Wondering55 can explain, concisely, in his own words, what he has done wrong and how he will proceed from here, I would support Liz's proposition to give him another chance. Using the advice and constructive feedback from his talk page archive, I was able to write a satisfactory but somewhat verbose example in 39 words. Otherwise, I'd say indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of bonus should they be able to avoid the use of the word "denigrating" in that explanation...? Seriously, though, at one point I contemplated counting up the repeats of the same old material, "arguments" and phrases just here in this same discussion, over and over and over and, did I say?, over again. I thought if I posted the totals they might have some impact. Then I scrolled through it all again and changed my mind, deciding it would be silly to spend the rest of my life on a job I could never finish, particularly given the astonishing lack of self-awareness of the editor I would wish to be chastened by the end result. 39 words sounds a good target. Begoon ^talk 12:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

OK, I have gone through this again, looked at the recent contributions from Wondering55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and based on the fact that the accusations of bad faith have continued undaunted by this discussion, I have blocked the account. The above comment from Begoon sums it up perfectly, and when Wondering55 manages this then I give open permission for unblocking without prior consultation with me (see the note at the top of my talk page). Guy (Help!) 12:43, 27 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.

Address jumping Swedish blog spammmer

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 last few days, someone is trying to market a couple of blogs by entering fake references into articles. As you can see, the user doesn't just copy the URLs directly into the article but uses a more clever approach, also making minor improvements to the concerned articles and marking the spam links as references as if in order to sneak below the radar of those patrolling the Recent changes who would immediately identify simple link spammming.

The four url:s I've seen used for this purpose include the strings freesciencepublication, frivetenskapligpublicering, worldwithoutexcuses and ingaursakter but there could of course be more addresses that I haven't discovered.

What can be done? I have tried searching for these strings every once in a while, but could some sort of filter identify specific URLs automatically?

- Tournesol (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You could request that the specific blogs be added to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. That would prevent them from adding the links to those specific blogs. Resolute 14:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• The most effective way to prevent this might be to list the domains here, which can result in a Foundation-wide ban that prevents anyone from being able to list those domains. The software will literally not allow them to be added to any page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks, I've done so now. - Tournesol (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • Added to the global blacklist. --Glaisher [talk] 15:44, 27 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.

Guilherme Styles' IPs

Despite being approached multiple times at talk pages (e.g. User talk:Guilherme Styles and User talk:187.250.55.141), Guilherme Styles (talk · contribs) is continuing to perform edits as 187.250.55.141 (talk · contribs) without using edit summaries, and refusing to engage in discussion. I believe there is a clear pattern of disrupting editing, and so am requesting permission here to start an escalating series of blocks and warnings per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Blocking and sanctions. DrKiernan (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Do You have any diffs? TitusFox^'Tribs 07:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see an example at User talk:187.250.55.141#Honorifics. You can see the warnings/concerns raised on the talk pages linked above. The fact that there are no edit summaries and no talk page edits are best shown by looking at the contributions history. DrKiernan (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Guilherme Styles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 187.250.55.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 187.250.100.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 187.250.83.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 187.250.115.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've blocked the first IP two weeks for edit warring and for never discussing their changes. This block can be lifted if he will agree to wait for consensus. In the past he must also have used the other four IPs, but they are inactive at present. Under all his identities he has made a total of two or three hundred edits to royal family articles which generally get reverted. He has his own ideas of proper style and doesn't care if others disagree. By IP-hopping he avoids those annoying warnings on his talk page. A rangeblock isn't practical. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Pownerus

• Dear Administrator. The user Pownerus has personal interests in articles as Church of God Ministry of Jesus Christ and the founder Luis Eduardo Moreno. The user continually undo the contributions that others Wikipedia's users make. Please pay attention that this user is assisted by other users with the same personal interest. --Escrituras (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Escrituras, it looks like both you and Pownerus are reverting each other on those two articles. But I don't see much discussion of your difference of opinion on the article talk pages. Typically, these are the first places editors who disagree go to discuss their differences. AN/I is the last place to come when you have a conflict, especially one over content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I did leave a note on his page about a couple of reverts that he called "vandalism" when they clearly were not, but Liz is correct that the primary problem here is one of content, and admin don't settle content disputes. WP:DR has some good info about how to deal with disputes, which of course should start on the talk page of the article. WP:BRD is also worth a read, trust me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I leave information in the talk pages of both articles. The user Pownerus clear reverting articles without any reason. --Escrituras (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Escrituras, both Dennis and I have left messages on Pownerus' talk page. Let's hope they will prompt the editor to start talking about changes rather than continually revert. Let's see what happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Escrituras has been changing text with no reliable sources, he was banned forever from the Spanish Wikipedia, because he (they) had sockpuppuets, made spam and assured that "we are a group of people interested in objectivity and authenticity". I was just stopping this sabotage in en.wiki. --Pownerus (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Liz, the user Pownerus does not try to discuss the situation in the talk page of the articles in question. The user has personal reasons. No exposed a civilized discussion on this page (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). The user does not respects and does not pay attention to the criterion and the contributions of other users like Wikid77 who has previously reviewed one of the articles. The user Pownerus continues vandalizing articles without exposing arguments in good-faith. --Escrituras (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What happens on the Spanish Wikipedia isn't important, this is the English Wikipedia. We have no authority over there, only here. The rules are different for the Spanish and English Wikipedia, very different. Let me explain the basics: Don't call stuff "vandalism" (or sabotage) unless it fits the criteria at WP:VANDAL. If someone reverts you, YOU (Escrituras) take it to the talk page first, via WP:BRD. Both of you need to learn to assume good faith and let each edit stand on its own merits. If you revert someone's good edit simply because you've seen them make edits you disagreed with on the Spanish Wikipedia, you are asking to get blocked. Whatever differences you two have, you would be wise to set them aside and just edit like normal editors. If you disagree, you use the article talk page, if you can't agree there, you go to WP:DRN. The last place you both want to be is here at ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm reverting hoaxes from Escrituras, policy about sock puppetry is the same in all Wikimedia projects. --Pownerus (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you can substantiate your claim of hoaxes, making the claim is uncivil. Even if you were 100% right, your methods are disruptive. And no, socking at Spanish Wikipedia doesn't mean you get blocked here. If you have evidence he is socking here at the English Wikipedia, file it at WP:SPI or present it here. Otherwise, your claims are disruptive and uncivil. ie: present evidence or stop making claims. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Accounts Escrituras and Luminares were found guilty on sock puppetry in es.wiki, you must check their ips; Take a look to escrituras' edits, he deletes text with not even a explanation or source, i.e: He puts thatLuis Eduardo Moreno had four children instead of five. --Pownerus (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What happens there doesn't matter here. I keep saying that, but you don't seem to get that point. Only WP:Checkusers can look at IPs under certain circumstances, and I'm confident they would not be willing to do so here, per our policies. If I assume that one person does have both accounts, as long as those two accounts don't edit in the same areas, it isn't socking. There is no evidence that he is socking here that I have found. Again, either present evidence of policy violation here at the English Wikipeda, or stop making the claims. Did he have 4 or 5 children? I don't know or care, that isn't an issue for admin to decide. Take it to WP:DRN. ANI is for discussing behavior, not content. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Liz and Dennis Brown, I have tried to reach a point of discussion with the user, but the user Pownerus has left no message on the talk page of the articles in question. The user Pownerus not attend the two warnings I left him on his talk page. The user Pownerus has reversed three times the article Church of God Ministry of Jesus Christ International in less of twenty-four hours, and other related articles. The user Pownerus has anxious and personal interest on the articles in question. Please review the reliable and relevant information I left on talk pages of the articles in question. Thank you. --Escrituras (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• He reverted you, so it is up to you to go the talk page instead of readding the material, via WP:BRD. When it comes to reverting back and forth, no one has a right to complain if they have not gone to that talk page and at least attempted a good faith discussion. The burden is on you, the person that wants to add the material. Adding "warnings" on their talk page is just a bad idea. A difference of opinion on content doesn't deserve a "warning". When you warn someone that way, you just set the stage for confrontation instead of cooperation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bahooka

WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 28 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. Hen kept reverting my edits and claimed I was evading a block (I actually haven't been on Wikipedia since 2010), like this one. He then claimed I was a banned user creating this article. I will eat chicken for dinner (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC) SeeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Altimgamr and disruptive behavior, including redirecting his user and talk pages to mine. Bahooka (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC) We seem to have a real issue here regardless of whether or not I will eat chicken for dinner is a sock or not. Their behavior has shown them to be disruptive right out of the gate. [147].--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you Mark Miller for adding back my edit. I'm hoping that an admin familiar with Altimgamr's case will review this. Bahooka (talk) 01:20, 28 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.

Disruptive editing by User:J. Johnson

JJ has engaged in the sort of behavior at Earthquake prediction that is described at WP:LISTEN. Looking at the past year of that article's revision history, it looks like JJ has exerted ownership over the article by reverting any edits by editors other than himself, and engaging in filibustering and wikilawyering on the talk page (by which I mean lengthy citations of policy which evade the issue at hand.) In this way he has driven away other editors and thwarted any attempt at collaborative editing. He received a warning on March 22 about edit warring[148], and the article is presently protected from editing.

I initiated a discussion at the talk page about what I felt was the use of non-neutral language which gave the article an editorializing tone[149], and followed that up with a request for comment on a particular formulation that I thought was representative of the problem.[150] The response to the RfC was that 6 editors supported one formulation, and JJ supported the other. JJ's reaction is indicative of the problem I wish to raise here. He simply dismissed arguments offered by the other editors, and asserted that other editors merely "dislike" his version.[151] He also characterized the opinions of other editors as "whining,"[152][153][154], and the RfC process as a "lynching."[155] He states ironically, "Why don't we just revert the entire article back to the piece of crap it was before I rewrote it?" [156] Finally, in response to a message I left on his talk page, he says, "You and the others may be thinking you have a solid basis, but as I keep showing: you don't."[157]

Hopefully, these examples are sufficient to illustrate the problem. I would like to see some sort of intervention. I don't know what you normally do in a case like this. Maybe a topic ban would be appropriate. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

An almost identical situation with J. Johnson is occurring at 2014 Oso mudslide and at the article talk page. Filibustering, refusal to actually discuss, berating, finger-wagging, insults in edit summaries, personal attacks, and wholesale reversions of blocks of new or copyedited content he doesn't like. He's issued ultimatums and threatened that if they weren't met, he would revert everything again. Not long ago, at the mudslide article, he actually and seriously suggested we all join him in supporting a topic ban of a brand new editor. I hesitated to mention ownership issues with him in case I was just reading him wrong. Now with the above complaint from Joe, I see I'm not alone in my assessment. It's been going on at the mudslide article for a couple of weeks, now (along with the other troubling behaviors I mentioned). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi comes with "unclean hands", his misrepresentations being more reflective of his own behavior at 2014 Oso mudslide. If they are to admitted into consideration here then they really should be examined closely, as they are, basically, untrue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ) and Winkelvi, your arguments are likely to carry more weight if you provide diffs to support them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here to pile on JJ, I'm here to support Joe Bodacious in his concerns by saying "It's happening with him elsewhere within Wikipedia, too". I provided a couple of diffs in my comments yesterday, so if an administrator or anyone else in interested in getting a general idea of what I'm referring to, they can. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, if such arguments are to be allowed into the discussion. Joe limited his charges to Earthquake prediction, where the dissension is (I believe) in good-faith all around, and also quite enough to handle as it is. Winkelvi is opportunistically opening a battleground where his own behavior is dubious, and even if I should solidly demonstrate this its relevance to EP is slight. To simultaneously try to expand the discussion while also demanding an immediate response is unreasonable. He says he is not here to pile on me, but it is not apparent what other connection he has here.

I will respond to Winkelvi's charges if some admin requests, but I do suggest looking at his history and comments at 2014 Oso mudslide before opening that can of worms. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

At Talk:Earthquake prediction, an RFC has been open for 8 days. J. Johnson is arguing his case, but so far nobody agrees with him, and the preferred option is a development of the one he opposes.

There is nothing wrong with being in a minority. Sometimes it's helpful for an opposing view to be expressed, and if done civilly and constructively it's all part of the process of improving content. However, those discussions are most productive if they are focused, civil, and assume good faith. Sadly, many of J. Johnson's comments are combative in tone, and almost battleground.

I hope that JJ will moderate his tone and accept the outcome of the RFC. A warning would be appropriate on that issue alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Joe Bodacious and BrownHairedGirl that it would be useful for an admin to take a look at Talk:Earthquake, specifically the RfC and the section below. User seems to be spoiling for a fight. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  Sorry BrownHairedGirl, hadn't realised you are an admin! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not "spoiling for a fight". In regards of the RfC mentioned I have been trying to get a discussion going that gets beyond mere "like/dislike", particularly with an IP editor that won't engage in discussion. However, I should like to take a day or two to consider these charges before responding. And I would appreciate if you would allow me to comment prior to judging me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That's just my own personal opinion of what you've written on the talk page. I could be wrong (I often am!). As we all know, it's hard to judge intent online. But that's the impression that I'm getting from the tone of your writing (for what it's worth). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• In spite of his denial, JJ has been spoiling for a fight at the earthquake prediction article as well as the mudslide article. Now he is asking for a couple of days to respond to "these charges". By that time, three days will have passed since the report was filed and it will be labeled as "stale", with nothing done (if something might have been done). Because of JJs penchant for wikilawyering (as noted by Joe Bodacious as well as myself in this report) and what I've assessed at the Oso mudslide article talk page to be [intent to game the system] ("How about setting that aside until ... Perhaps tomorrow? ... and then we could revert to (say) Gorthian's last edit."), I have to object to waiting any longer for JJ to comment. He was here long enough to acknowledge this AN/I report, why not just comment and be done with it rather than dragging it out for 2-3 days more? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Like waiting overnight would be the end of the world? Like I should do like you and fire from the hip without any time for thought or consideration? Exactly who here is spoiling for a fight? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Joe Bodacious accuses me of 1) WP:OWNing the EP article (by "reverting any edits by editors other than himself"), and 2) filibustering and WP:Wikilawyering ("lengthy citations of policy which evade the issue at hand"), thereby "thwart[ing] any attempt at collaborative editing". For good measure he also throws in a charge of 3) edit-warring. All of this is characterized generally as WP:Disruptive editing, and particularly Failure or refusal to "get the point". The particular issue is one raised at Talk:Earthquake prediction#Request for comment.

Joe's charges are not entirely accurate, and a few points need to be clarified. E.g., the edit warring involves the questionable edits of an anonymous IP editor who will not discuss his edits; the protection was applied at my request, and the warning was the standard one given to all editors in such cases. Also, Joe's statement that I "simply dismissed arguments offered by the other editors" is misleading, because (see the RfC) no arguments were offered by the other editors; their comments were entirely "like/dislike".

Leaving such matters aside, I believe "Failure to get the point" is indeed an issue here. But which way does it run? I believe Joe's view is (more or less) that I "don't get" that six editors oppose me, and therefore I must accept the majoritarian position. However, I think Joe doesn't get that WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that discussion is supposed to be based on "clear, solid arguments". And that is my complaint here: that (regarding the RfC, and aside from Joe and myself) there has been no (as in zip, zilch, non-existent) discussion, and that (more broadly) Joe and the anonymous IP want a pass on having to engage in any irksome discussion. Please advise me if I am wrong here, but I don't believe it is "wikilawyering", or a misinterpretation of any policy, to require discusssion, or that discussion be based on more than "like".

I credit Joe for sometimes engaging in discussion. But sometimes he does not, and sometimes not to the point. When my repeated questions (presumably the basis of his charge of filibustering?) are ignored (what I deem to be stonewalling, which, curiously, points to the same place as filibustering) I allow I occasionally get snippy. I regret that this is taken as combative (is it?). But he does seem to have a low threshold for irony and such. And I hope Joe will understand that my "tone" results largely from frustration that neither he nor the others will explain their real objections, which impedes finding a satisfactory resolution.

BrownHairedGirl hopes that I will "accept the outcome of the RfC". Please note that I am not opposed to a revision (only to the existing text), and have offered do so myself. The contention has been in determining what needs to be changed (or getting anyone to explain why they dislike the original text), which makes finding a satisfactory alternative rather hit or miss.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you seem to be unable to hear the explanations is indicative of the problem. Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps because you fail to clearly enunciate? I note that you seem unable to hear me. I have tried to present not just my views and arguments, but also my understanding of yours. Is there any particular point where my understanding is defective? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It is defective at precisely the point where you say "there has been no (as in zip, zilch, non-existent) discussion." Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

JJ, users on the article talk page seem to me to be discussing the tone of that particular sentence in the article. The relevant policy advice is WP:TONE and the relevant text is Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. WP:ASSERT and WP:LABEL are also relevant, as is WP:NPOV.

Ca2james has now provided a really clear (I think) explanation on the talk page - I'd urge you to read it and try not to dismiss it as WP:LIKE: option B to be unsuitable for an encyclopaedia for several reasons: * the phrase "to deceptively claim" is an unusual word ordering and so difficult to parse. * "chicanery" is a judgmental, loaded word that could be considered contentious and is better avoided. * "predictions" is enclosed in WP:SCAREQUOTES which are to be avoided. * "constant drumbeat of earthquakes" is very poetic but it is not plain english * Option B is not WP:NPOV because it contains the above elements to be avoided; for this reason and because it also contains the unencyclopedic language and structure noted above, it is not a good choice for an encyclopaedia..

Other explanations have been provided by Aircorn (more appropriate for an encyclopaedia), Homunq (it's obvious that the various !votes are expressing policy-relevant opinions on WP:NPOV rather than just irrelevant WP:LIKEs), GRuban (Because it conveys the same information in less space, with simpler language. "constant drumbeat" and "chicanery" are unnecessarily poetic. We're an encyclopedia. Hyperbole and metaphor should be beyond us.), Robert McClenon ("Constant drumbeat" is so an extravagant statement, and is unencyclopedic. While "chicanery" is precise, in referring to dishonesty, "dishonesty" is a more common use of language (if sourced properly).) and 166.147.88.42 (I think he means "B is unnecessarily poetic.").

I think that your initial expectation that editors would lynch alternative B means that you're seeing a lynching where none is intended. Your refusal to WP:LISTEN to editors explanations of their objections does not mean that editors have no objections other than WP:LIKE, or that their objections can reasonably be dismissed as hand-waving, bellyaching, feeble, whining or without a factual basis (in my opinion).

Editors are here to work together as colleagues, not to defend their 'own' text; this isn't meant to be the adversarial system. A couple of essays that might be relevant are WP:BLUD (others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior) and WP:REPEAT. Peace, Out. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Subject of RFC

The RFC in question was originated by J. Johnson. It asks which of the following two statements is preferred: A. Because earthquakes represent a significant hazard, there is significant motivation to predict their occurrence. Unfortunately, there have also been many exaggerated claims of success.

B. With such a constant drumbeat of earthquakes various kinds of chicanery can be used to deceptively claim "predictions" that appear more successful than is truly the case.

Statement B was the original, and is the language preferred by J. Johnson. A revision of A has also been proposed. No one except J. Johnson has expressed support for statement B. However, he insists that there is a failure to discuss, and that the arguments against version B are merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving On

I see two ways to resolve this content dispute. The first is an administrative SNOW close of the RFC to establish consensus on the language to be used, and to hash out any other content issues on the talk page. The second is to topic-ban J. Johnson from the article for disruptive editing. My choice is, on the principle of minimum sanctions, to go with the snow closure of the RFC and give J. Johnson a chance to accept consensus. Has there been other earlier ownership behavior that would warrant a topic-ban at this time rather than giving him the second chance? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

By my rough count, JJ has made 30 reverts on this article during the past 12 months. The article has been protected twice during this period due to edit warring. Typically, JJ's edit summaries say that the reverted edits are "undiscussed," and from what I have observed (including in this ANI discussion,) if JJ disagrees with another editor's comment, then that comment does not count as "discussion." He often reverts multiple edits at one stroke, which is frustrating for the editors who have worked to justify each individual edit. It is clear that he considers himself the sole arbiter of what should be included in this article. He also, IMO, has run afoul of WP:SOAP; he considers anyone who poses the possibility of earthquake prediction to be a charlatan, and he wishes to write the article in such a way as to polemically discredit and ridicule proponents of earthquake prediction, which is why in the RfC he is not content to simply say that "There have been many exaggerated claims of success." Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Having reviewed the history, I agree that his edits show serious ownership problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Strong support snowball close - consensus is very clear. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe finally touches on the underlying pov of many editors here: that I have polemically discredited and ridiculed proponents of earthquake prediction. Which is a good topic for discussion. However, that is not what the Rfc was about. The explicit issue of the Rfc ("which formulation ...") has been decided, it has even been implemented, there is no opposition. Continued discussion of that point has no purpose except as a springboard into other topics, but some editors find that useful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Should J. Johnson be topic-banned from Earthquake prediction for ownership and tendentious editing?

• Support on reviewing the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per minimum sanctions / 2nd chance. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I now Support a topic ban as JJ has already gone back to personal insults ('vocabulary impaired'), so in my view he's just blown that 2nd chance. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. I disavow any ownership, am resigned to whatever happens to the article, and particularly have no desire to do any reversions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per J. Johnsons comment above. Lets see what happens from here. AIRcorn (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Aircorn, please note my comments below to see how things have already evolved. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The first diff you present is problematic and is not the first time ip editors have been unfairly targeted. I don't see a problem with J. Johnson contributing to the talk page though and it doesn't go against what they said above. AIRcorn (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is my understanding that topic bans are to extend to the talk page of the article(s) one is being banned from. Further, topic bans are preventative. Obviously, from JJ's latest insults and jibes and pokes at the article talk page, nothing has changed thus nothing is being prevented. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per J. Johnson's latest comments at the article talk page (all made after he indicated here he would be staying away from the article). See the following diffs: [158], [159], [160]. Because of these comments, it doesn't seem to me that he's "...resigned to whatever happens to the article" at all but it does seem he is interested in causing further disruption. I wasn't going to comment on this any further, but when I saw the talk page comments made by JJ after essentially promising he would stay away, comment seemed necessary and appropriate. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I find JJ's response (on talk) to my recent edits to be reasonable comment. Let's see how it goes. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Only part of my point is his less-than-stellar comments and tone. "Why do you care? You didn't contribute anything." is unnecessarily rude but fits a pattern in JJs past interactions and lack of good faith in articles and on talk pages. "As the subsequent comments were all off topic I have split them off into their own section. This thread is presumably dead for lack of interest from anyone, now including the originator." is also fitting a pattern of incivility as well as what seems to me an attempt to negatively engage through poking. The other point I made is that in order to avoid a topic ban (remember, he said a topic ban wasn't necessary) he indicated he was no longer interested in contributing to the article. That would include commenting at the talk page, would it not? Right after saying a topic ban wasn't necessary because he was going to leave the article alone, he went right to the article talk page with uncivil and disruptive comments. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not say I was going to "stay away". I disavowed "ownership" and indicated I would not do any reversions; Winkelvi has misrepresented my comments. Winkelvi also accuses me of wide-spread lack of good faith (thus violating WP:AGF himself), his comments amount to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, his animus arising out of various disputes on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide (which involve other editors as well as me). He has no prior presence or interest in EP, and appears to be here only to attack me. As I said before, if his comments are to be considered here then a closer look should be taken of his allegations and their context at the Oso article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please extend a little bit more good faith to ips. This does not make you look good and you are on thin enough ice already when it comes to this topic. AIRcorn (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I now agree with you, per JJ's latest contribution to Talk:Earthquake prediction civility is clearly still an issue. I've revised my !vote above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support since Johnson seems disinclined to even acknowledge problematic behavior that brought us here. 166.147.88.43 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Anon using several IPs for disruptive reverting

Resolved

This user who I believe is registered as DenSportgladeSkåningen is using several IPs (90.231.59.159, 81.237.241.67 and 2.65.139.118) to revert edits without providing any explanation, argument or reason whatsoever. When I tried discussing in edit summaries I was met with a personal attack as seen here. When I tried to open a discussion with the user on the talk page of 2014 Malmö FF season I was met with silence and continuous reverts of my edits, despite the user being informed of the need for discussion. See here, here and here for examples. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Looks like a duck to me. I've indef blocked DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk · contribs) and blocked 90.231.59.159 for 48 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 02:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

admin User:Kurykh self administered his own web page

Nothing to see here folks. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 28 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. This occurred after stating "Greetings from a (Redacted) classmate". One should recuse himself from administring his web page. This complaint should address whether self administration is permitted. (Redacted) I am actually really unclear as to what this complaint is about but, you need to notify the user that you started an AN/I report on them. I have done this for you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I believe it's in reference to the oversighted edits on User talk:Kurykh - which, given that they were oversighted, the OP has all of four edits and came straight to ANI, and also performed these edits, means I'm going to duck because I hear an incoming WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yeah, that's not okay. Handled. LFaraone 07:07, 28 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 on Religious views of Adolf Hitler

User User:Ozhistory is continuously engaging in a edit war on Religious views of Adolf Hitler, if you're an admin., please issue a warning toward this user. TheGFish (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) A few points:

• You must notify any user you mention here by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to the user talk page. I am not sure if a ping is an acceptable alternative.
• A warning is the same whether it comes from an administrator or not. Administrators have the ability to block users, if you're looking for that.
• Ozhistory's edits are not vandalism; we should generally avoid calling edits vandalism.
• Consider your own actions as well. There doesn't seem to be much discussion on this issue on the article talk page, so you yourself may also be engaged in edit warring and consequently blocked.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Anon126. Obviously my placing citations in a bundle and requesting that this user explain his edits is not vandalism. I believe that TheGFish is probably the banned User:Greengrounds who was banned for gross incivility, vandalism, and constant edit warring (among other things). He left wikipedia promising to continue attacking myself, User:Smeat75 and others, whom he blamed for his ban. Bishonen, Penwhale, User:Salvio guiliano and John Carter were among the admins who took action last time around. These false allegations against me are probably an attempt at revenge for the part I played in alerting administrators to his original activities. He may also be responsible for this recent threat of violence on my talk page. This IP user should obviously be blocked, and if TheGFish is a sock puppet - then so should he. Please investigate if you are able. Ozhistory (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Ozhistory: I'm not saying that you are entirely free of fault. Edit warring, while not vandalism, is still disruptive. I cannot find much effort to discuss the merits of the content in an actual discussion page, and that goes for both parties.

To editors TheGFish and Ozhistory: I think someone else should examine this case, but I personally believe you two should discuss on the talk page or another dispute resolution venue. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, User:Anon126 This page and topic has a history of vandalism. The editor in question removed content without giving explanation. I reverted this edit and asked for him to explain his edits on the talk page in my edit summary AND placed a note on his talk page requesting that he explain any future edits. He responded by ignoring my request to explain his edits on the talk page, and making false edit summaries calling me a vandal!!! This is not good faith behaviour, and as I have said, it is quite likely that this editor is a sock puppet. At any rate I have formally requested that he explain his edits on the article talk page. Ozhistory (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave explanations and you Ozhistory haven't for your edits that deleted content some time ago. The additions by you is obviously against WP:NPOV, as I mentioned to you before. TheGFish (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. As your user contributions] show across a few pages you have made edits without explanation. These included removal of citations and content. You keep removing citations without explanation on the Religious views of AH page and you keep making false assertions of vandalism there - not to mention here. User:Anon126 has already explained to you that my edits are not vandalism and you should not call them vandalism. Please identify precisely which "addition" you believe is NPOV on the TALK PAGE with reference to reliable sources. If you attempt to call me a vandal again (as you continue to do in your edit summaries), I will take action for repeated personal attacks. If you continue to remove citations and add contentious content without explanation, I will continue to challenge you in order to protect the integrity of the page. Please respond to my request for discussion on the talk page. Ozhistory (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the lack of TheGFish's usage of article talkspace, in addition to the lack of reply to Ozhistory on his own talk page would lead me consider a rebounding sanction rather. Also, I am very much confused of TheGFish's actions at Religious views of Adolf Hitler anyway (undoing his own action and labeling it Neutral Point of View is weird, at the very least). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

TheGFish has apologized for posting the vandalism template.[161][162] But "Vandal" has remained the header to this report until now. GFish, please note that "New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral." "Vandal" is a personal attack, and not informative either, and I've changed it. @Ozhistory: re the socking issue, I suggested a couple of days ago in response to a question from you that you might take it to WP:SPI for CheckUser attention, if you have sufficiently cogent evidence.[163] If you haven't, it would be better not to make and repeat the accusation here. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC).

socky hoppy

Hey, if there are any wizkids awake (Kww, Elockid, etc), can you have a look at the recent IPs I blocked, all related to some silliness at Shanghai, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and User talk:Zanhe? Maybe there's some proxyblocking or other fancy footwork you can do. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Powerhouse again? I'll whack some ranges, and look into what it takes to get every IP address they own blocked. I'm tired of them.—Kww(talk) 03:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I blocked one of the ranges as a proxy. It's one of those, it's possible to access for free VPNs. I'll take a deeper look though. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both. Powerhouse? Drmies (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Long-term edit war on Template:Infobox mobile phone

The editor Davidjonesmartin (talk · contribs) has been involved in suspicious behaviour on {{Infobox mobile phone}}. In fact, his only edits have been on said template. He has persistently demanded the inclusion of infobox fields specifying whether a phone has an unlockable bootloader and can have root access. There were attempts to discuss this, but no clear consensus. However, he has still strived to include these fields, and has reverted any attempts to remove them, either without explanation, or by stating that they are being "widely used" (which is incorrect). This, along with the wording of some of his statements (i.e. "Many people want to know if their phones allow changing the operating system", "I consider this info very important, to the point that I will not buy a phone without Root access.") means that he is essentially asserting ownership of the article and disrupting to make a point. This needs to be investigated. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see that those things points at OWN or POINT at all. Having said that, the editor is working against consensus and will need to stop. If Davidjonesmartin wants that stuff included they're going to have to find consensus, or perhaps make consensus in in WP:RFC. Until then, it's out. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Reddit based Edit War, request for semi-protection.

Man-Thing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reddit thread highlighted Original Research. I removed the the original research, now multiple IPs from Redditors are engaging in an edit war without regards for guidelines.Hope to either force the issue to the talk page now that it is well over WP:3RR time. I left a request for semi protection 45 minutes ago and the edit war continues. Systems Theorist (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. Mike V • Talk 21:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Feysalafghan

Feysalafghan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing sourced content from Deobandi on the belief that the information is somehow not legitimate. They have already been warned on their talk page. This last section blanking came well after the warning. Feysalafghan has already been blocked for edit warring and has been brought to this board before for similar foolishness. I think it's time for a ban. I'd also like to point out that articles like Deobandi are covered by discretionary sanctions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris Troutman does edit warring over deobandi

about Chris troutman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He doesn't gives correct references that's why we edit war. He has such an egoism please someone stop him. only thing what he does is going to report someone as soon as possible and i think is against the wikipedia rules. On wikipedia it's normal to have argues and chris is reporting too many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysalafghan (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 April 2014‎

Note: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Feysalafghan above. Voceditenore (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Merged topics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This is my first time being reported at ANI so I'll try to contain my excitement. I'm surprised, being a student of a Jesuit school, that I've fallen into egoism. Feysalafghan claims that "chris is reporting too many people" but honestly, how many is "too many" ? Chris Troutman (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Alleged hoax (mathematical topic) featured on front page

• Chihiro number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wjxb (talk · contribs)

Hi all,

It was brought to my attention via an anonymous email to OTRS that the above-linked article, Chihiro number, is titled as a complete hoax. This is related back to a Facebook post made by the purported author; a screencap of the relevant Facebook post is at <http://s27.postimg.org/y0f0d7uyr/hoax.png> (I didn't know how the licensing would work given it features FB UI and also the alleged users' comments, which haven't been released under CC). The person who emailed it in noted that, while the theory is indeed correct, the notation of it being called the "Chihiro number" is the part that is possibly totally bogus.

This article was featured on the main page as a DYK yesterday. I have alerted Wikiproject Maths, but I feel this would benefit from extra eyes to confirm that it is a hoax and identify any further issues (there's some silly-buggers going on at Serge Rudaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) involving 128.101.39.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others, who also edited the Chihiro number article, so this doesn't look terribly simple to understand the entire situation). Further, I'd argue that the way this article was written (and the markup used) by the single purpose account reeks of someone with Wikipedia editing experience.

Your thoughts and input much appreciated.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Although the journal "New York Journal of Mathematics" does exist, the referenced article does not (http://nyjm.albany.edu/j/2001/Vol7.htm). In fact, no one named Mueller has ever published in that journal. This reference, which seems to substantiate much of the article, does not exist. The other main reference is the one due to Kagachi, and that also appears not to exist. Google scholar has never heard of "Chihiro number". This is clearly a hoax. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, I did a careful search. Mueller, Joseph (2001). "Implications of the Chihiro Numbers on Computational Timespeed". New York Journal of Mathematics 7: 278–289. (see the journal at [164] and Ghentsky, Christian (2003). "Comparative Growth Rates of Chihiro Numbers and Derived Sequences". Journal of Integer Sequences 6 (3): 53–59 (see [165] are fakes.. The alleged webpages used at one point for expressions in popular culture don't exist either. I agree this must be a sock puppet. DYK is a favorite target for fringe stuff and now hoaxes - a simple check would have turned up the fact these sources didn't exist. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The sequence is a real sequence appearing in the The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences [166] but that should not be taken as any indication of notability.--Salix alba (talk): 14:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the basic hoax part is the name, using fake references. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, there is little appetite at the DYK project to actually do anything about mistakes like passing this hoax. I notice that the hoax page has more than 100 incoming links. EdChem (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

All the IPs for both articles come from the University of Minnesota. This was probably organised there. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this one and the above "JC is risen today" hook were both promoted by User:Allen3. Fram (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly not a new user: [167] Any chance of a checkuser here, or will it be too much of a fishing expedition? Daniel (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor who gave the tickhas only one other edit and it is related to the hoax. Almost certainly a sock of Wjxb. EdChem (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Partched (talk · contribs) ‎and Wjxb (talk · contribs) indefinitely and Dougweller has soft-blocked the IP address 128.101.39.37 for three months. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Writing here without indentation since the indendation is a bit confused above. I've removed a bunch of additions to other articles I found from a internal search. For some reason I didn't think of using 'what links here' until saw it mentioned above but it's fairly useless for an entirely manual editor anyway at the moment because of the lag time (I found one article then gave up). (Edit: I think) A bunch of these links actually came from Template:Classes of natural numbers (edit: or other templates it was added to) where it's been reverted (edit: well there are no valid article templates in what links here). I think Daniel and others have already gone through the stuff from Wjxb as most of the stuff I found from them was already reverted. The other editors I came across are 134.84.62.45 (talk · contribs), Partched (talk · contribs), 131.212.241.22 (talk · contribs), 128.101.39.37 (talk · contribs). I suspect all of these editors were acting in bad faith but didn't look enough to be certain, but someone may want to go through their contrib history to make sure if they haven't already. (I did briefly look at 128 and found a hoax edits I missed as well as stuff related to Serge Rudaz I didn't know what to make of.) Also User:Camboxer but I'm fairly sure they were acting in good faith. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that editors from the University of Minnesota have also been trying to remove the name of a professor there, Serge Rudaz, from our articles, I think maybe a complaint to the university is in order? Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting annoyed - especially when they go deliberating ruining GA articles with more hoax BS.[168] The user Partched, who tried to approve the DYK hook is proof of a deliberate attempt to foul articles and so was Wjxb. The fact these editors were even at DYK should have set off alarm bells. This is more than just a breaching experiment - this was a pretty clear bad-faith attack on Wikipedia's credibility. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Future of DYK

Wrong forum. I suggest that this discussion be moved to WT:DYK, where parameters for a well-formatted RfC can be hammered out. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Isn't it time that a serious discussion about DYK and its future (if any) was held? This, the above "Did you know that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"? section, the all-too-frequent very problematic hooks (factually incorrect, NPOV, ...) and articles (copyvio) that get on the mainpage thanks to this section... Can we really afford to have such a problematic section on our mainpage? More scrutiny would help, but wouldn't solve all problems, considering that e.g. the actual move from DYK to the mainpage is done by admins, which doesn't seem to help one bit. It's probably time to have a WP:CENT discussion about this, but until then a larger number of editors checking these, and failing all articles and hooks that simply aren't good enough in any aspect, would help. Fram (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Way past time I'd say. Will you start one? It seems unlikely that the problems can be fixed as this is far from the first time this has happened. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Yup. Way past time. It is blatantly obvious that DYK material isn't getting checked properly, and far too much problematic content gets passed by contributors who either don't understand policy, or choose to ignore it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The QPQ is always problematic. Clearly, non-experts shouldn't be reviewing anything requiring more than common sense. I wouldn't touch a math article with a ten-foot pole. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly, non-experts shouldn't be reviewing anything requiring more than common sense." But here lies the problem - non of us are experts. In this case of a hoax being created, and then OK'd by a sock account, who checks the checker? Did this only get picked up because it went through DYK in the first place? How many hoax articles exist that simply sit in the background? Now where did I put my can o' worms...?! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've not liked the DYK system - its needlessly complex and has a rough history - combined with QPQ - its a bit problematic. One of the DYKs I reviewed was Naked Jungle and its hook is sourced to an unreliable source and I better not see that go through to the main page. I think DYK needs a bit of an overhaul in its processing and it needs to be more like GAN - trying to fulfill a specific set of DYK hooks per day seems to be a reason things are being rushed and blatant hoaxes are slipping through. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree DYK is too rushed. It seems to operate on the principle that all submitted articles (if DYK compliant) get on the front page. It used to be that DYKs only changed every day. Now they are put up three or four times a day and the rate is adjusted to suite the number available. It needs to be a lot more discerning. SpinningSpark 17:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, not many people have been around long enough to remember when DYK was only updated once a day. For a little perspective, DYKadminBot, the first bot designed to automatically move new DYK sets to the Main page, was hard coded to perform 4 updates per day when it was approved to run back in November 2008. --Allen3 ^talk 19:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to operate on the principle that all submitted articles (if DYK compliant) get on the front page - If (genuinely) compliant: why not? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Or a conflict-related article that was once one of our WP:GAs, but is now in the trash. Hmm, WP:DYK really should implement a system of "check Google first". Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As your link demonstrates, checking Google won't help if newspapers are parroting what they find here as if it were fact, instead of doing actual journalism. Not every DYK is a new article, after all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, what's DYK for, anyway? It just seems like a bunch of random facts that are spewed out, and it only happens because the article is new, or expanded, or recently promoted to GA/FA status. Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

...and you just described exactly what DYK is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I'm just wondering if it will have any real use besides populating our brains with seemingly random facts (IMO). Epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes there should be an RFC on DYK - but not at AN or ANI. For what it's worth I have boycotted DYK ever since some clever clogs decided to introduce the ridiculous rule that you had to review somebody else's DYK in order to get your own looked at. Not sure if it's still in place as I've not been back since, but I was doing at least one every 2 months at one point. GiantSnowman 18:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You get to put a pip on your user page for getting an article on the front page. It is to encourage (and reward) new articles and major expansions. I've got 4 of my own, but QPQ has kind of kept from seeking others, as the review process seems, well, odd to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The QPQ rule was instituted because, at the time it was instituted, the nomination page was clogged because nobody was reviewing anything. This is the point 'abolish QPQ' arguments must address: the fact that if people aren't required to review a submission, nothing gets reviewed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That would stop the bad DYKs. I know we don't want to create new fiefdoms, but when you have someone review a DYK only because they want to submit more DYKs tomorrow, you are asking for sloppy work. Quantity or quality, maybe the rotation is too quick and we would be better with fewer per day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrarily capping the number of DYKs per day has been proposed before and creates its own set of problems. Capping requires you either reject otherwise valid nominations (with all the WP:DRAMA that comes with such a rationing process) or support a system where the number of pending nominations will approach infinity over time. The real solution is to get more reviewers, but so far no one has figured out how to tap into the vast mythical army of highly qualified and motivate volunteers just waiting for us to allow them to start working. --Allen3 ^talk 22:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The number we use now is arbitrary, is it not? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The number of hooks per set and number of sets per day are adjusted over time based based upon the rate of incoming nominations. The idea is to roughly match the number of processed nominations (promotions + rejections) with the number of incoming nominations averaged over the course of a week or month. An example of the type of discussion that goes into adjusting the run rate is available at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 101#Time to reduce run rate? --Allen3 ^talk 23:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

...I think you missed the point. Removing QPQ will result in a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions, that's why QPQ was instituted in the first place. (As it is I have a hook I submitted way back on April 3 that has yet to be reviewed.) Reducing the number of hooks per day will make that even worse, not better. I'm afraid these proposals will break things worse, not make it better. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should go, and I don't claim to have the answer, trust me. It does need some oversight or reorganization. With QPQ, you will always have slackers that do the minimum review to get by. I suppose you get new users who just aren't qualified as well, which aren't QPQ. I just know some kind of oversight is needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's why QPQ is only required after you've gotten five DYK credits - it's assumed some clue is had by then, I suppose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree a discussion is needed. The current system seems to result in some seriously uninteresting stuff appearing on the front page (I know this is subjective, but I really can't understand how "... that with its "New New York" episode, the focus of Glee shifts to New York City for the remainder of the show's fifth season?" is worthy of being on the front page).I think the requirement to review other entries also puts people off (well, me at least), and I wouldn't be surprised if loads of stuff gets approved without proper scrutiny because the people doing the scrutineering couldn't really care less about the one they have to review. Number 57 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Broad-based discussion good. QPQ bad. Some changes needed. Hulk's head hurts - too lazy to think of details. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Flip side of the coin: why is it not worthy of being on the front page? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Idea Can we create an {{expert needed}} type template for when a reviewer feels the subject of an article is over their head and flags it for an expert?--v/r - TP 19:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Another idea No more AGF-style citations checks for any nominators without the autoreviewer flag.--v/r - TP 19:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• The thing that gets me is that (as per the screenshot) the guy who did this, had come up with an unnamed number sequence. He could have done this legitimately. He could have submitted it to Journal of Recreational Mathematics or some such publication, and then named it after whatever the hell he wanted. DS (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem with "DYK is broken and needs fixing" discussions is that they are, inevitably, charged into from the very start with torches and pitchforks by those who are determined to shut it down, not fix it. This naturally leads to circling the wagons by the "nothing is broken" crowd, and in the end much sound and fury signifies nothing, nothing changes, and the editors who really do want to help fix things won't touch the fix-it discussions with an eleven-foot pole on account of both sides hissing and scratching at each other like just-bathed cats. I wouldn't go so far as to say that a large part if not most of the problem is the "anti-DYK" (for want of a better term) crowd repeatedly attacking with 'shut it down' arguments instead of 'here's how to fix it' arguments and provoking a turtling, but I'll certainly point out it's easy to think based on observations of what has gone before (and, alas, what shall very likely happen again). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think most of the comments so far are about fixing it rather than scrapping it. I am a big fan of DYK when it has genuinely interesting hooks, and used to contribute a number myself. Number 57 22:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Except, even though I recognise it's not at all their intent, most of these suggestions? They would break the system worse - which would be greeted with bated breath by those who seek to kill it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Scrap QPQ, go back to one DYK per day on the main page. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a little baffled at all the calls to get rid of QPQ. We need more scrutiny on DYKs, not less. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. QPQ lends itself to hasty and half-hearted reviewing. StAnselm (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I did about 40 reviews in 2014 (article names on my user page), please review them and see if "hasty and half-hearted" is justified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm betting your reviews weren't QPQ. That is part of the concern, some of the people that do them only because they are QPQ might not have the same diligence you do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would strip it down to only displaying three; two from new articles, one from a newly-named good article. No more QPQ, but the hook must be decided through consensus from a minimum number of users, and be genuinely interesting. As such, we would only need (depending on if we still do multiple cycles; maybe twelve hours?) 3 to 6 per day. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, no, and no. "Minimum number of users" - how many? Who does it? Who will want to do it when they're inevitably ripped to shreds over it? How do you define if a hook is "genuinely interesting"? Is a hook about the properties of a rock "interesting"? And again, this will create a truly massive backlog. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The idea of putting consensus into hooks will make the whole process bog itself down, as voting on each hook will require that people input their ideas each time, and that will quickly become burdensome. If you have any idea about the number of hooks proposed on that page, then you would probably realize how bad of an idea that that is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong forum as this affects the community-as-a-whole. Maybe WP:VPP? the panda ₯’ 23:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Or WT:DYK... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Now at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Planning an RfC on the future of DYK. All input welcome. Fram (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Jerry Pepsi uncivil, fresh off his 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.

---

See his edit summary in the recent history for User talk:Jerry Pepsi. Choor monster (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Most recent block and many previous discussions have been for edit warring and other disputes over Pepsi's particular interpretation of category usage (August 2013: article protected to stop edit war, September 2013: both editors need to discuss first), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Jerry_Pepsi October 2013: discuss issue), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive226#User:Jerry_Pepsi_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_No_action.29 October 2013: both editors need to discuss issue, October 2013: page protection to stop edit warring, February 2014: 3RR- blocked for one month). I see a lot of harsh comments by Pepsi[169][170][171][172][173], and a few warnings I gave:[174][175][176]. The last of those in response to this reply to a NPA warning:[177] "warn this ya pissy little bitch". Then a block for personal attacks[178]. The new edit summary, "deleted content placed by cunts", is inexcusable and Pepsi doesn't seem to have heard the prior block's message: "remove abuse of power horseshit". I would note that "sexism accusations would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic", but I'm just a "pissy little bitch" (and might be a "cunt"). - SummerPhD (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

But all these diffs are for events from prior to his block. The only thing after coming off the block is one use of the word "cunt". -- Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Technically you could call the most recent edit summary is a personal attack, however I'd let it slide for now. Understandably the editor is upset coming off a block. It was done in an edit summary on their own user talk page, not directed in such a way that they were trying to convey the insult to the individuals involved. I wouldn't even bother giving out a warning for it, if the editor wants to blow off steam in a minor way I don't see that it's such a big deal. If I was a betting man, I'd probably wager that this editor is likely to reoffend and find a larger block since they are showing resentment toward the block they received, which suggests that they consider it unjustified, and don't consider the behavior leading to the block to have been wrong, so would be likely to repeat it. But I wouldn't warn or block until that behavior does repeat. -- Atama頭 16:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is that Pepsi, who has been blocked twice before, comes back and right away shows he is not capable of working with the Wikipedia community in any sense. It's not just his putting personal attacks in the edit summary, where they are almost "safe" from deletion, it's his unshakable belief that he got blocked because there are all these low-lifes getting in his way. Choor monster (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

But we're not thought police, if someone has a chip on their shoulder but doesn't actually reoffend then there's no need for action. We don't block people for having bad attitudes, we block them for the disruption caused by such feelings. As I said, I would bet that he'll reoffend, but until he does there's not much to do. Look at the opposite situation, what if a person was pleasant, complimentary of others, and yet causing disruption despite that? That would be worthy of a block, because it's actions that matter, not attitude. -- Atama頭 16:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

His personal attack in the edit summary is an offense. Choor monster (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Distasteful choice of word aside, I'd be more concerned about the edit warring on List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes. Was at it before the block, straight back at it again after. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Summer warned them for that, yes. Good point. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• "because it's actions that matter, not attitude."

This is not entirely true. I've only been visiting AN/I for around a year and I've seen editors blocked because of excessively racist or sexist attitudes. Of course, these attitudes have to be expressed for others to know about them so, technically, those words are "actions". While I understand not blocking an editor for a patently offensive edit summary on their user page, I don't understand why it doesn't warrant a warning. Editors get warnings over far less offensive acts every day. Heck, I saw a user get a warning for leaving two spaces after a period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Civility is no longer enforced, or at least only enforced when convenient (i.e. if a subjective viewpoint on content differs from that of the blocking admin). I agree with you, I don't think Jerry Pepsi is capable of editing here in an acceptable fashion. However this one edit isn't actionable on its own and the past edits are past. Have a read of WP:ROPE and wait until he does something that is. Maybe he won't, maybe he'll behave in a manner that's manageable for the good of other editors. Maybe (and I expect so) he won't. Either way, our actions have to be based on what he does from here on, not what we think he'll do, or what he did.

Unless he leaves two spaces after a period, of course. That's a hanging offence. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

By itself, the offense in question is relatively minor. But I believe it should be counted as relatively major if things play out as we're all predicting. Choor monster (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Your comments are extremely cynical. Yet I agree with them completely. We are at a point where civility isn't enforced. If I tried to use my admin role to be the civility police I'd probably get lynched. The reasons for that are something I'd rather not derail ANI with, but suffice to say that it's how Wikipedia is right now. (WP:WQA seems so quaint now.) But WP:ROPE is my thinking too. And I don't suggest ignoring the remark, but I wouldn't even offer a warning for it at this point. -- Atama頭 17:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I realize you are using "lynched" in a metaphorical way but I don't think you can't compare being beaten and hanged with having a few editors blow up at you on a noticeboard. It's like calling an edit war a holocaust. And, no, I'm not the civility or politically correct police it's just that online spats are awkward, infuriating and frustrating but they are not deadly. Let's not trivialize violence by comparing it to verbal disagreements. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Liz, but according to common usage in the vernacular, that horse left the barn long ago, before "literally" no longer meant "literally" even. (More seriously, while I understand the concern, "lynched/lynching" has had its meaning shifted through usage; it's now in the same category as where somebody who says "f that s" isn't meaning he intends to have congress with excretment). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Time to bring the ban hammer down, and quickly, on this insect. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Civility is not dead. The enforcement of civility is difficult, of course. (And enforcing it prompted by Lugnuts's comment would be hypocritical.) ROPE, indeed: Pepsi, whether they read this ANI thread or not, has no excuse for continuing sexist and insulting language, and I will be happy to block them the very next time they use a personal insult like they did recently. Atama, hate to disagree with you, but I will offer a warning, even if the lynch mob is at the ready. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

My deepest apologies for any insects that were offended. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

How dare you Drmies! Just kidding, warn away. -- Atama頭 18:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block of Pepsi It'd lead to a Pro-Coke bias of Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 21:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Attention, T--I think someone may have spiked your diet coke. Get a grip, man! Drmies (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You haven't seen the long reach of the Coke propaganda machine. They're trying to convert this entire nation into Coke-a-holics. It violated WP:NPOV to block Pepsi.--v/r - TP 23:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • What do you have against the fizzy refreshment? ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I've seen the Coke propaganda machine. You put a dime in and it plays one of the crap jingles. We should block it. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• More rapid edit warring here. Is there any point in persisting here, or is it time to just give up on WP - pop culture content at least. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether you choose to enforce WP:CIVIL or not, it's hard to ignore edit summaries like "deleted content placed by cunts", in regards to continuous pleas for improvement by various editors. It's a freaking duck. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This guy is my hero. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Mr. (or Mrs.) Pepsi is basically on their last warning at this point. They've been warned not to edit-war any more on categories. Their last block for this behavior was for a month, the next one can (and should) be indefinite. Their only excuse in all of this is "I don't check my talk page very often", as if they need warnings to know what edit-warring is when they've already had a month-long block for it. I've left them a note on their talk page so that they are aware that they're on the edge of an indefinite block. -- Atama頭 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your actions, Atama. Having been one of the previous recipients of this user's vitriol (noted in one of the diffs above) I share the concern that this user be kept on a very short leash. His use of words like "b---" and "c---" to describe editors who clearly are female is not a minor and inoffensive remark, it is demeaning, invalidating, a form of harassment, and not appropriate in this context. As for Coke versus Pepsi, both contain ingredients that are hazardous to your health. Grab a beer instead!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's appalling that you tolerate abuse. The editor should be blocked. Howunusual (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I have a suspicion, based on editing style, that the user is a sockpuppet of banned editor User:Otto4711. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711 for my full report. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've looked at SMM's evidence, and checked it against my own stockpile of Otto4711 info, and I concur. I've said as much on the SPI. I really don't think a CU is necessary, behavioral evidence should be sufficient to indef block JP. BMK (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alison's finding was that Jerry Pepsi is "Likely" a sock of the banned editor Otto4711, so if an admin could wrap up the SPI and indef block Jerry Pepsi, this AN/I thread can be closed as well. BMK (talk) 10:06, 29 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.

Threats being issued by a user

Princessruby has issued a threat against me, saying they will "be compelled to play around with the pages that u made...i.e like rafe fernandez, theresa donovan n etc. So, this is my last warning to you." I issued Ruby numerous warnings because a page of creation she's been editing has copyrighted, or suspected copyright material as a copy and paste move from the source I provide]]. And the template states only an ADMIN can remove the template once they have been looked over. Obviously, this user does not understand Wiki policies on such things. This user has continued to add fancruft edits to several articles about soap characters, and edits that defy the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystalball. The template clearly states: "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent", something which Ruby is not. And to continually remove the template and re-write the section, according to the template is against the rules, as far as I am assuming. And them issuing a threat like they have is simply NOT acceptable at all. To say they're going to vandalise pages that I have worked on providing original material, and writing original thesis' of story lines, etc. is unacceptable. And I hope the Admins of this website are able to look into this user's actions and see how problematic they potentially are. I understand this user's edits are in good faith, but going against policies is just unacceptable. And I have not been the only one to issue warnings to this user, and they continue to ignore them. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ben Rogers (Days of Our Lives) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for reference.--v/r - TP 18:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed the article and the page you say it's ripped from and frankly I just don't see the copyright violation. It isn't even close paraphrasing. I think you owe Princessruby an apology. On the converse, threatening to disrupt the project to settle a score is not appropriate either. Princessruby owes the rest of us an apology.--v/r - TP 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: The original edits of the storyline sections clearly have Copy/Paste moves from Soaps.com, I was simply following the template, which clearly states only an Admin can remove it. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to speak with this user about her edits with other pages, that continue to fail Wiki standards, and instead of discussing back, she keeps reverting them and asking to not disrupt "her" work; user is clearly unable to work amicably within Wikipedia as a neutral editor, and their user page clearly states to not get on her "bad side". That is not the type of editor I believe Wikipedia wishes to house. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

My interactions with Princessruby have generally been more civil (one deletion request and one request for advice) and they don't seem that disruptive; however, I didn't see their user page or their interactions with you. I have asked them to respond to the thread you started; despite their assurance on my talk page that they would do so, they haven't responded yet. APerson (talk!) 13:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Consult on possible Socpuppetry

I blocked a new user's second account, User:Sharoetry, because they were edit warring something he had been editing as Unicornwhite. He is claiming the policy doesn't exclude content focused accounts, but that seems like trying to thread between the clear policies towards grey areas. I normally don't handle user blocks, and would appreciate a consult at the alternative account's talk page User talk:Sharoetry. Both User:GrahamColm and myself perceived it as malicious and against community standard codes of practice. Would anyone mind chiming in, so that I don't go too far down the rabbit hole of paring words? I think the user has good intentions, as far as I can tell. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• At the top of the WP:SOCK page, is the phrase "This page in a nutshell: The general rule is one editor, one account." Using more than one is an exception that needs to be justified. There are plenty of good reasons, but doing different tasks is not a good enough reason. That can easily get into good hand / bad hand accounts. In this case, there is crossover in edits, so the fact that you didn't indef block the sock and two week block the master shows you are being plenty tolerant here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just to shed a bit more light, there is a list at WP:VALIDALT which shows when it's permitted to have alternate accounts. Anything that doesn't fall under one or more of those categories is an unauthorized use of multiple accounts. In addition, when using multiple accounts you are almost always required to give some sort of notification (whether that's a private message to a CheckUser or Arbcom, or some obvious notification like similar account names or links on user pages and/or signatures). When I've run into an editor who uses multiple accounts in an unapproved manner, but isn't obviously abusing the second account, I usually end up blocking the alternate account but not the main account. But I also talk to the editor first, to be sure that they're not using the second account legitimately and to let them know exactly why they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. -- Atama頭 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbullying over article about Anita Sarkeesian

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.

---

On December 20th, User:SarahStierch invited me to Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon. I had participated in a local Chicago Wikipedia meetup before. I didn't have the opportunity to attend. Today, I was looking it over, and I was reading various articles related to feminism. I stumbled over Anita Sarkeesian. I had never heard of her before. I was reading over the article, which seems only one-sided. I saw that Sarkeesian had been the subject of a massive hate campaign, when she tried to raise funds for a YouTube series addressing girls in video games. I wanted more information about how someone with a Master's Degree needed to raise these funds to make simple videos via Kickstarter, so I looked into income and employment for communication studies, women and gender studies and political thought. As a disclosure, I am computer engineering major at University of Massachusetts - Lowell on a Provost Scholarship with a 4.0 GPA. That being said, I have absolutely no agenda against people with going for Sarkeesian's related majors, since some of my best friends are also going for majors in public administration, marketing, business administration, economics and health administration, which require communication and political science courses, that were important for Sarkeesian to get her degree.

In her background information, I saw the universities she attended as well as her majors in communications and political thought. I visited the university websites and looked at the curriculum. I was shocked that there were no prerequisite math, computer science or science courses whatsoever. I was thinking that this supposed expert would have skills related to video games if she chose that major and topic of discussion. I looked at income and employment opportunities at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as well as The Wall Street Journal. I also looked at the college rankings of the universities she attended. I compiled this information and posted it to her article.

The backlash I received was beyond my comprehension. User:Tom Morris reverted it saying I it was original research. User:FenixFeather Posted on my talk page that I did not cite any sources, when I very obviously did. I posted on the talk page to facilitate discussion. I won't link to every diff, since you can simply view the discussion at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Academic credentials. Rather than constructive discussion, I received bullying claiming original research, synthesis and unreliable sources, all of which are completely false and the other editors have conceded. Instead, I was faced with discussion comparing my edit to adding "puppies and sunshine" to computer science articles, comparing my edit to computer "puppets" and even the use of the F-word. I told the users I would not tolerate this behavior and would simply report the incident. The users continued to bully me on my talk page, again with an instance of the F-word from an edit I helped with free licenses and accusations of original research. (Seriously, I cited every single piece of information. This is unwarranted behavior.) I asked the users to stop and leave me alone. They did not. In attempt to stop the bullying, I archived my talk page and placed {{talkarchive}} at the top, "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page." They have continued to edit it anyway.

I would like this bullying to stop. I suggest blocks for the associated users. I find it echos the bullying Sarkeesian received, and these editors have formed a close-knit bunch to keep the article their way, as some way to protect her. (All her YouTube videos and even her Ted Talks have comments, ratings and statistics disabled.) I would also like the article to have a better even tone. A while back, she was the suspect of copyright infringement, for example, and there was a heated discussion to block this from being added to her article by people passionately defending her, obviously not conforming to neutral point of view.

Also, since this is not about a specific user but the group of users who are keeping close watch of the article, would you please advise if I should use {{subst:ANI-notice}} on each one of their talk pages or not? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You should definitely use {{subst:ANI-notice}} on each of their talk pages. Thank you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You are one of the users in question. Please refrain from your obvious conflict of interest and be patient for an administrator to answer. Taric25 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You just requested that everyone that talked to you on that page be blocked. Of course you should put the notice on their pages! You don't need an admin to tell you that, just common human decency. Also, with regards to editing the archive, I had not realized that you archived the page (usually, it isn't typical to archive a thread in the middle of a discussion). Feel free to undo that edit if you wish. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I had already moved the page and even edited it a second time with the box template. You did not receive an edit conflict. You clicked into the archive, had the opportunity to preview your edit, where "/Archive 2" was in big, bold, black letters at the top of the edit window the entire time. In fact, your edit, not mine, is still the very last edit on the archive page. Taric25 (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you should always notify everyone who your ANI is about - that's why there's the big orange banner at the top of the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I wanted to make sure multiple templates were not a cause for disruption. I visited the talk pages of each user, and a notice exists now anyway. Me posting a second one is not necessary. Taric25 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I notified everyone for you. You're welcome.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit in question and talk page discussions are self-explanatory. The complaining user made a tendentious edit on a biography of a living person, which consisted entirely of original research, synthesis, hand-waving and literally making things up, in a clumsily-designed attempt to impugn the article subject's educational credentials. Several experienced users, myself among them, made efforts to tell the complaining user what was wrong with their edit. The complaining user refused to hear any of it. So we're here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That edit was ridiculous. Taric25, I very much doubt any action will be taken against the editors who are telling you why it's ridiculous. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to specifically address actions of the users in question.
1. Claiming I did not cite my sources

This is totally and completely false. If you would like to dispute how I used my sources, that is perfectly acceptable on the talk page or with a tag.

2. Claiming unreliable sources

This is also completely false. No one is disputing the validity of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Wall Street Journal,U.S. News & World Report or the websites of regionally-accredited universities. Again, disputing how I used my sources is a different matter entirely

3. Claiming original research

Seriously? Do you honestly think I decided to get up early in the morning and do my own research by somehow surveying thousands of employed and unemployed individuals and then hack into the BLS and WSJ websites to post this research?

4. Using the F-word

This is just self-explanatory.

5. Continuing to post on talk page after I have told you to stop

This is also self-explanatory.

Separately, I think the matter of how one-sided the article is could be the heart of the matter in question. Taric25 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the nature of the original research and prohibition on original synthesis policies of the encyclopedia. You need to read them. What you are doing is taking a number of different ideas and sources which are completely unrelated to Anita Sarkeesian and combining them to make a specific argument about the validity of Sarkeesian's educational background.

Do any of the sources you cited mention Sarkeesian in any way, shape or form? Do other reliable sources make arguments about Sarkeesian's educational background? The answer to both questions is no. Ergo, using those sources to make any argument about Sarkeesian is original research and absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia - especially when related to the biography of a living person.

Your objective here is patently clear to anyone - you wish to use your own personal biases and beliefs about Sarkeesian's educational background to depict Sarkeesian as somehow incompetent or unqualified to comment on video games. You may do such a thing on your own personal blog. You may not do such a thing on Wikipedia. We won't allow it. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs please? I looked at your Tom Morris and Fenix diffs and your characterizations very conveniently left out they were also talking about synthesis, something which is right on the money. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to read the discussion, it's only a few paragraphs. You can read it at Anita Sarkeesian#Academic credentials. If you need an individual diff, you can click the history. I provided all the rest of the diffs. Taric25 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and as I just stated, your characterizations of posts are rather misleading. So we can discount 1, 2, and 3. No one is going to be censured for "TL;DR: Give it a fucking rest" (#4) and #5 was a mistake. Anything else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I never intended any misleading statements whatsoever, and yes, there is something else, stalking my edit history, such as this, for use of the word, even when it is the actual name of an article I was linking. Taric25 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If an editor makes an obviously problematical edit, and furthermore defends that edit, it is not unusual for other users to check the editor's contributions to make sure problems don't exist in other articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What problem are you suggesting is in this edit of my edit history that this user decided to focus in that edit by this user? That is the name of the article, and the link to the word is described in the article itself, which I even linked to that exact same section. There is no problem here. The user decided to stalk my edit history for use of the word, which was benign since it is in the name of the article, as a form harassment and obviously deserves censure. Taric25 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Now who's assuming bad faith? Your Sarkeesian edit was poor. Your subsequent defense of it shows you have trouble writing appropriate BLP content. Editors are going to check over your edit history to see if you made the same type of edits elsewhere (heck, that's pretty much standard practice for many of us). During the course of checking, other edits might come up and be commented on. This is not stalking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to continue discussion with an individual who will defend that made a lousy edit so I deserved to be harassed, and yes, it is harassment. The user was looking for an instance of the word in question, which I have never, ever used on Wikipedia inappropriately, as is so obvious from my edit history. Have a nice day. Taric25 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Though I have been notified of this thread, my involvement in this is limited to a single comment on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. I maintain that the edit in question was synthesis, which is why it was removed, but I believe that it could have been made in good faith. The problem is that its substance closely resembled edits that have been made to the article in the past by editors who wanted to express their own distaste for Anita Sarkeesian and her Tropes vs. Women project. Novusuna ^talk 00:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Novusuna, I think that may be why I experienced such backlash. I think the editors here are so used to seeing people making vandalism and bad faith edits, since she was the target of a large hate campaign that it is difficult to see when an edit is made in good faith. True, an argument could be made for or against synthesis, which I was never and maintain that I was never attempting that whatsoever, I still think it would be appropriate if a user wants to revert the edit and discuss it on the talk page. That is fine with me.

What is not fine with me is outright false claims such as not falsely claiming I am not citing my sources, accusing me of bad faith or another agenda, unreliable sources, using foul language, talk page harassment, sarcasm, etc. That is why I posted here on ANI. I am totally open to discussing the content to improve the article. Taric25 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you make it fine in short order. Combined with original research violations with severe POV-pushing is (fortunately) one of the easiest ways to get blocked. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, who are you? Did you forget to login? Taric25 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Taric25 - Let me add my voice here: your edit was classic OR and SYNTHESIS, and in a BLP, it was absolutely correct that it be removed immediately and kept out of the article. You had best catch on to the truth of it, because it turns your reported "cyber-bullying" into what it actually is: correct protection of the article according to policy. Further complaining about it will not change that, any further action to support your edit will almost certainly end up in a WP:BOOMARANG. Please read 'closely' the policies on original research, synthesis and biographies of living persons. If you still don't understand what you did wrong, ask an experienced editor that you trust for help. But rest assured that you are at fault here, and no one else. BMK (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not making any claim whatsoever that it is inappropriate for editors to discuss with another editor why they feel another editor's contribution may be synthesis. I am totally open to discussion on that topic, and that is why I started the topic on the article's talk page. The reason I came to ANI was to report their behavior, not to force my opinion that my edit was the right one. Taric25 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

BMK's comments are spot on: Taric25, your edit and subsequent reactions are much more serious than anything you're trying to report. Even beyond the serious WP:OR and WP:BLP violations of the initial edit, your failure to get the point when the issue was explained to you by various other editors is a problem of its own. Hopefully this is a wake up call and the behavior will cease; please take it to heart.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Cuchullain, considering our history together, I ask you recluse yourself from this discussion. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no excuse for swearing at an editor. The person who did that should be held accountable. Howunusual (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Sunday lunch with your grandmother. I don't use obscenities because they invite unnecessary distraction but "give it a fucking rest" isn't worth any kind of censure. It would be if Wikipedia had a strict policy against using obscenities as some forums do, but I don't see that happening. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, while certain instances of swearing can be problematic if they are maliciously aimed at making personal attacks on another editor, in this case it was more of an expression of frustration and clearly not an attack. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 05:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is clearly an example of stalking and an attack. It was also the second instance of that user using the F-word towards me. Taric25 (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Taric25, it looks like many people have already told you this in some fashion but just to reiterate, your edits appear to be a clear cut example of OR, particularly synthesis (which is a form of OR). In fact, when I was reading you initial complaint above, the more I read your complaint, the more it became clear you were engaged in highly problematic OR, so it hardly surprised me when I came to the part of your complaint where you said you had been accused of OR etc.

OR is always problematic but it's particularly problematic on BLPs where we require high quality sourcing.

It's possible that the way some people approached you about this wasn't ideal, but it's perfectly fine and expected and not bullying or harassment that when you make such edits, people will approach you about it and make it clear such edits aren't acceptable. You should expect this even more if you fail to understand that and why your edits were problematic.

The fact that you may be acting in good faith doesn't change this. In fact if people believed you weren't acting in good faith, it's likely people would talk to you less, since there's little point talking extensively to someone who may already know their behaviour is problematic and probably isn't going to change in any case, instead simply warn and block as needed. But in the same vein, acting in good faith doesn't mean you won't be blocked if problematic behaviour continues.

To put it simply, if your own complaint screams out to people 'my behaviour is problematic' but you apparently don't recognise that and are instead complaining about people who have told you so, you shouldn't be surprised at the response.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am completely open to discussing problems the other editors may feel amount to synthesis. That is perfectly decent conversation. The reason I came to WP:ANI is for the swearing, false accusations of not citing my sources, using unreliable sources, repeated swearing, sarcasm, harassment, etc. Taric25 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The first law of holes is that when in one, you stop digging. Everyone else disagrees with your assertion that you weren't attempting synthesis. When everyone else disagrees with you, you may need to consider that you're wrong. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and continually bashing your head into that consensus may be considered by the community as a waste of everyone's time.

People who tell you you're wrong are not harassing you, and there is no prohibition against the use of sarcasm on the encyclopedia. Nobody said you didn't cite your sources - what everyone said is that you misused sources to synthesize new claims which have not been made by reliable sources. This is prohibited on the encyclopedia, as literally everyone has pointed out. Your claims otherwise are unavailing - because they are wrong. Full stop.

If you're interested in constructively contributing to the article, you are welcome to participate. This means listening to other editors, making your edits conform to policy and consensus, and refraining from claiming that those who oppose your edits are "cyberbullying" you. You are responsible for reading and understanding content policies and ensuring that you do not violate them.

If, on the other hand, you're going to continue to waste everyone's time trying to use BLS statistics and USNWR rankings to insinuate that Anita Sarkeesian is unqualified, your editing career is likely to have a brief and unhappy future. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not come to ANI to debate your opinion on my reliable sources I cited. I came to report behavior. If you would like to discuss synthesis, we can do that on the article's talk page at a later time. I emphasize I came to ANI to report behavior of swearing, etc. Taric25 (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's evident that nobody cares about the use of "fucking" and that nobody else thinks you were "cyberbullied" in any way, shape or form. You don't get to control the direction of the discussion and if there are unintended consequences to your report, then maybe you should have considered that before making it.

This thread has predictably boomeranged on you, and I really suggest you give it a rest, like everyone else has suggested. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're open to discussing problems with other editors then why did you come here? As I've already said, when you editing was so terribly problematic, it's difficult for people to really care about whatever other minor violations other may have committed in telling you about it, particularly when you continue to insist your editing was problematic when it's been pointed out to you time and time again that it was. If you had started this thread and said "I made some major errors in editing because I didn't understand policy but I feel that this behaviour was others in addressing my major errors was over the line", perhaps people would have had a little more sympathy. But when you come here acting as if you did nothing wrong and then talk about how you're open to discussing problems with your editing when thats what people have tried to do multiple times but you still don't get it, you should expect the little sympathy that you've gotten here. You can't just completely ignore others comments about your editing because you find them offensive, particularly if a bunch of editors are saying the same thing about your editing and no one has defended it yet which often (not always of course) means they have a point. Definitely it's entirely resonable for your problematic behaviour that started whatever mess to come under scrunity when you complain about the behaviour of others towards you, and that isn't even unique to wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• This edit by Taric25 is an outstanding example of WP:SYNTH violation. The negative information is not directly related to Sarkeesian, but it is added for the purpose of diminishing her credibility. Taric25 should be trouted for bringing his complaint here. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As I stated time and again, I am completely open to discussing incorporating information to improve the article, and at no time was I ever attempting synthesis. I did not come here to insist my edit is the right one. I am completely open to discussion. I came here because of the behavior of the other editors, as I have stated above,which, I may add, I also do not appreciate you suggesting I should be smacked with a fish. Taric25 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with Binksternet. That is a bad case of OR in the diff. Is trouting enough? The fact that this user still thinks a bit of swearing is more of an issue than putting this sort of OR into a BLP suggests they should be kept away from BLPs until they get it. DeCausa (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • BLPs, like Miss Foozie? Oh, wait, yeah, I wrote it. I know how to edit Biographies of Living Persons, thank you. I don't know why you insist smacking me with a fish is appropriate. Taric25 (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's great if you've successfully edited BLPs in the past in accordance with wikipedia norms and expectations. But the fact remains your editing to the article that started this whole mess is problematic and you still don't seem to be getting it, which does suggest you probably should stay away from BLPs until you do. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was original research and it is completely inappropriate for inclusion on a BLP article because it advances a conclusion in the voice of Wikipedia that is not present in any of the presented secondary sources about Sarkeesian. I stand by my reversion for the reasons I have given on the talk page. I have the page watchlisted because it has—over the last few years—been the target of repeated incidents of abusive and vindictive vandalism and violations of the BLP policy. It concerns me that an experienced editor with 4,000+ edits and reviewer/rollbacker can't see immediately why this edit was a problem given policy. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Tom, I am perfectly happy to discuss construction and improvements to the article. I did not come here to insist that an admin side with me to make my edit the right one. I came to ANI for the behavior and backlash I received, which was completely and totally inappropriate. Taric25 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have had a look through your changes and can make the following conclusions. What you added was obviously verifiable by sources, but it was about California State University, Northridge, not Sarkeesian herself. It is very important when writing biographies of living people to strictly adhere to a neutral point of view, and in this case, that means we should simply report that Sarkeesian graduated from CSU Northridge and earned a masters degree from York University. Any criticism of the universities, where validated by sources, should go on their own articles, and even then I think your edits went into excessive detail. People should be allowed to make up their own minds what they think of a particular academic institution - I grew up in an era where we had "real" universities, polytechnics and when getting a job aged 18 wasn't anything unusual - but my own biases and opinions can't go into Wikipedia.

As far as profanity is concerned, I'm not averse to using the odd "f" word in real life (if I saw that somebody was about to plug something in the wrong way round into a breadboard with a 450V HT supply and potentially electrocute themselves, it's a great word to use), but here I generally take the view that it usually says more about the editor who offers it than who it is directed to. Anyway, just ignore it - most people will.

Of the comments left on the talk page, I had a look at Tom Morris' reply and thought it was well thought out and explained why your edit was problematic. I see no harassment there. If I had to criticise any of the other replies, it would be that they didn't explain their position well, assuming you knew about various guidelines you may not have done. I can't offer any solution there other than just a reminder all round to assume that we all try and make the encyclopedia better, and that people, particularly non-regulars, aren't necessarily as familiar with policies and guidelines as you might think. And don't use three letter acronyms before you've defined them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:53, 28 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.

Could someone - don't know who - clarify this

I happen to be looking at my contribs and noticed that my post in the above thread appeared to be revdel'd. Puzzled by this, since I can't imagine that anything I said warranted it, I see that it's still visible on the page. I looked at the edit history of this page and noticed that about half a dozen other posts about the same time (06:00 onwards 28 April UTC) are treated in same way. Could someone explain it? It's not a big deal I suppose, and probably there's an obvious explanation that I've missed but I'm not keen on having in my contribs a post that was apparently so bad it had to be rev del'd. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

At 5:35, a troll tried to out an admin and posted personal info (even the troll's username was an attempt at outing). You posted at 6:52. The personal info was not removed until 7:07. The personal info needed to be revdel'd, so all posts from 5:35 until 7:07 (including your 6:52 post) had to be removed from public view as they all contained the outing. Your post remains in its entirety, as do all of the post made during this time (other than the troll's), however the *diff* of each post is inaccessible because each diff would still contain the outing made by the troll. Clear as mud. Rgrds. --64.85.215.186 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"TV Show People Court" threat

In this edit Forever17 shabazz says that s/he is going to "sue you guys big time" and that s/he "will take this all the way to the TV Show People Court".

There is no action required here, but I thought I should notify this noticeboard, to be on the safe side. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. It's some kid who's here to advertise his "over 7 nice awards for being the nicest person anyone has ever seen!". Yippee. This isn't Romper Room. He's also using at least one IP to further his goal of "notability" here. Doc talk 08:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. Maybe in a few years they'll get over themselves and desire to actually contribute. the panda ₯’ 08:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone should probably delete User:Forever17 shabazz/Shabazz Sallier too, if only because he claims some of it is copyrighted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done via CSD#G12. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Might want to also delete their userpage, or at least this revision, as it contains the same material as the other deleted pages. There's also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shabazz. Good thing he won that "Track Participation Award" back in 2012; can't take that away from him. Rgrds. --64.85.214.214 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:List of Bohemian Club members

[179] started an RfC on whether a specific source can be used to call people "Honorary Members" of the Bohemian Club.

Ought this list include "honorary members" whose membership is noted in Phillips' and not in standard WP:RS biographies? 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is a neutral statement of the issue at hand to be discussed.

This has been repeatedly changed to

Ought this list include honorary members? 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The editors who have repeatedly made this very substantial change to the topic at hand kept the original time stamp implying to all who come to it that this was the issue posed. All have been notified [180], [181]. WP:RFC specifies: If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template and implicitly says unilaterally altering a question is improper.

[182] amended per POV [183] RfC questions must be neutrally worded [184] Undid revision 606360629 by Collect (talk) Don't set up a non-neutral RfC by putting some of your arguments into the question!)

I consider the removal of the entire actual issue to be improper, and shall make due notification on that talk page. By changing the topic, the editors involved seem to desire to elide the existence of the prior RfC which has now been totally ignored. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, the RfC is about this edit of yours where you removed honorary members. I restored these members, so that interchange is what's on the table. You seem to think that the issue is about the 1994 Phillips doctoral thesis used as a reference, a reference that was judged to be perfectly okay at RSN. Nevertheless, your removal of honorary members included people such as Charles Coburn and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. that were cited to Phillips, and you also removed honorary members that were cited to sources from 1895, 1898, 1904, 1905, 1908, 1918, 1922, 2003 and 2005. Thus, it is clear that your concern is not just about the Phillips source. It is instead about honorary members being listed at the list of Bohemian Club members. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect's concerns are completely irrelevant here. Do not modify the wording of an RFC that someone else has started: it's deceptive, making Collect look like he's said something other than what he really did. If you disagree with the question as stated, you're free to oppose the proposal, but under no circumstances is it appropriate to change someone else's proposal without that person's acquiescence — let alone to edit-war with that person! I couldn't care less about honorary Bohemians, but any more deceptive edits of this sort will result in reversion and block. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

And Binksternet just gave me a formal 3RR notice for my belief that RfCs ought not be reworded to say something that they were not intended to say, and ought not put words into others keyboards which they did not type per the actual WP:RFC page. The question is about usig a particular source which traces back to self-published claims by the club. We have already established a consensus that the source is bad, but two editors seem to think their two !votes outweigh the other six, which includes total outsiders. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of all else, Binksternet's edits are a violation of WP:TPO, and are also against what is suggested at WP:RFC. Let this be a formal warning to Binksternet: refactor Collect's RfC information again and you will be blocked. You have no justification for doing so, so just stop. You are disrupting the process. There is already an alternative for you on the RfC page (add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template). -- Atama頭 23:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing I said is potentially confusing, so let me clarify it. "Collect's concerns are completely irrelevant here" — I was responding to Binksternet's statement of "it is clear that your concern..." I'm basically attempting to say that I don't particularly care about the substantive matters, and that they're not relevant to the issue of WP:TPO compliance. Not attempting to dismiss Collect's concerns about this specific situation! Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Vgcdrtcrrsu

This user has continued to revert my edits on a redirect for the article The Powerpuff Girls: Dance Pantsed, I have tried reaching out to the editor on their talkpage: [185], as well as starting a discussion on the mainpage. [186] despite both of these I have received no response only reinstated edits. In addition the user has blanked content over at List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes with no explanation. The Powerpuff Girls articles have been a target for vandalism in the past and do not know what to think of these recent edits, asking for some advice here. Thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any advice on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Since they seem to be new, I've pinged them about using edit summaries and communicating on talk pages. Hope it helps. All the best, Miniapolis 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Just for the record I am not opposed to the idea of an episode article just there was a-lot of un-sourced WP:OR added to the new article and the rest just repeated info already included in the parent article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Microlawyers

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'm having trouble editing Wikipedia since I came here. I can't edit without being reverted. I really don't know if this case fits in vandalism, sock puppeting, paid editing, COI or something else. Maybe all of them?

I believe that Codename Lisa is a young man and Jeh is an old man that works for Microsoft Corporation or other third party companies. I suspected so when I saw his user name after reading Windows Internals. His user name is the same as the one used for exemplification in the book. After he started citing personal information about people connected to M$, I was sure of that. (page history, this edit).

They wikilawyer each other (including other users) and I guess that they know each other in real life or at least exchange emails. When something happens against one of them, another just pops up from nothing and protect it.

Before creating an user account on wikipedia, I was already familiar with the software because I was a reader and I also had wikimedia installed on a Debian server. As soon as I created it, I made sure to read as many policies as possible and watch other users' behaviour to avoid making any mistakes. But when I started editing, I was soon attacked by C. Lisa. That went on. I now, a few hours ago, I made a major change on ntoskrnl.exe and was preparing some modifications on that article that was somewhat abandoned for a long time. It was soon reverted by Jeh and later, all messed up. I'm stuck now. I can't revert it to the "boost" review. I'm fed up.

It's really sad to see that such people, behaving compulsorily, are the first to talk to (by attacking) newcomers; (really) smart people that don't care about Wikipedia and are here just for fun; and non-native English speakers. They exploit WP policies (especially WP:V). I believe that policy has a loophole (if you're a non-programmer) or a security breach (if you are a programmer :-) that allows an user to to remove (by reverting or something) the edit that another user created. That is quite useful for removing a vandalism without a warning. But they are causing damage to Wikipedia because users that exploit it prevent new content from being inserted and worked on.

It's impressive the tone that C. Lisa uses when talking and how Jeh brags about himself. They and other users involved also make jokes about their disruptive editing. If you look at their contribs you'll see that there are mostly reverts and "fixes" of what other users have done. They are no content creators. The just "enforce" Wikipedia policies and "manage" other users by wikilawyering.

We really should do something here. If nothing is done again, I will quit editing Wikipedia and do something else. But don't worry, I will make sure the world has the chance to hear what I have to say. --M4t3uz (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You've tried to make some major changes to an article. Yes, we appreciate being bold. However, someone reverted those changes (and I can understand why at first glance). Wikipedia therefore requires you to open a discussion on the article talkpage in order to try to gain consensus for those changes. A hint: 10,000kb+ of changes at a single edit is a very bad idea. Break your changes into smaller chunks that everyone can both make comments on and modify as per discussion, THEN make the changes. Accusing people of having COI, and trying to guess their ages is a very poor idea in terms of civility and real life outing the panda ₯’ 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone based on their ages. I just tried, on that paragraph, to show how I imagine things to be going on in real life. I don't talk about my age neither. But that is not the point. The point is what you can see in their contribs and user talks. Please take your time to analyze that. I know big chucks of code is bad due to the size of the diff. I had no choice. Please take your time to see what these users have done and what has already happened. --M4t3uz (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I did review, and suggesting that I didn't is rather non-AGF. Have you followed any of the suggestions I provided since? By linking a Wikipedia user to a real-life person - especially by using as you call it "Microsoft internals" you CAN and will be blocked for attempted WP:OUTING the panda ₯’ 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Calm down. I did not point to anyone in real life. There could be anyone. Windows Internals is a set of two books public available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4t3uz (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

M4t3uz: I reverted your changes to ntoskrnl.exe because they were a) riddled with errors, b) almost completely unreferenced, and c) simply not written to WP's standards for quality of English prose.

Regarding c: Your writing is disorganized, progressing in no logical order; lacking in motivation (that is, the reasons why particular points are supposedly interesting or essential were often not given), technical terms are used in detail before being described (or not described at all or even wikilinked), etc. In addition, the quality in terms of the basic rules of English grammar and sentence composition is amateurish at best.

I understand the "work in progress" aspect, but as it stands that material is flatly not anything that should be in a Wikipedia article, not even for a day. (And if I were editing a tech news site like Ars Technica, I wouldn't accept it there, either.) We do have standards of quality here. A reader of Encyclopedia Britannica, or even Ars Technica, never goes away from an article thinking "wow, that was hugely disorganized, and I wouldn't even grade the grammar higher than 'D'." Your material will, on the other hand, provoke such a reaction.

Are you really so unaware that your writing is of much lower quality than the typical WP article? WP:CIR doesn't just apply to technical content, you know. It also applies to the ability to write good, clear expository English prose. Your material does not demonstrate that you have that ability. Your responses indicate that you refuse to believe that you do not have that ability. This does not bode well for your ability to contribute finished text to Wikipedia.

But! I offered you a workaround: Create a sandbox (under the article talk page, NOT in main article space), put your changes there, and invite others to help. After all, at the very least, you have started on a good expansion of the outline (the topic list) of the article. I even gave you a link on your talk page by which you could create the sandbox with two clicks, and then a few more clicks (and a copy-and-paste) to copy the article as you had it into the sandbox. Then we could revert the main article back to its previous (admittedly very short) state while the work you started progresses. I ran an article improvement project on Binary prefix that way a while back, and it worked very well.

See, I had hoped that if you would accept the sandbox route, and then accept improvements to your material from other editors, we could all could avoid having to confront you with what I said in the preceding few paragraphs. You have apparently rejected this route.

Your complaints about WP:COI are off the mark. I am not a Microsoft employee, but it would not matter if I were: COI would not prevent me from contributing to articles about Microsoft products, nor from reverting changes such as yours. From the intro to WP:COI:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers.

My only goal in reverting your edits was to remove inaccurate, poorly-written material from the encyclopedia. How you think that is going to promote Microsoft's interests, promote my own business or financial interests, or make the encyclopedia less neutral or less reliably sourced is quite beyond me.

I am not going to confirm or deny your WP:OUTING attempt (other than, as above, to state that I am not a Microsoft employee), but I have to ask you: If I did contribute to Windows Internals, as you certainly seem to think I did, then by what rationale do you reject my judgments about your writing on the subject of the Windows kernel image? How do you hold those two thoughts in your head at the same time? Jeh (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@M4t3uz: You may know the Wiki software, and that's good. But while you've read policies it's clear you don't understand them. This is not meant to be an insult, I didn't understand them either when I started and it took me awhile to catch on. That's normal with any editor. The issue is that if you run into a conflict, where you and another editor disagree about what should be in an article, the correct course of action is to talk about it. The preferred place is on the article talk page, but it's also okay to talk things out on a user's talk page (whether yours, or theirs, or someone else's). You've been deficient in doing so in this case. I know that you know how to participate on talk pages, you've left comments on a few article talk pages and you left a comment on Codename Lisa's talk page. But what I haven't seen you do on Wikipedia (before this noticeboard posting) is get involved in a discussion. That is how everything is sorted out on Wikipedia

You seem like someone technically experienced, you know a good bit about software. I can relate, I've been a network administrator for almost 15 years now in real life. But you can't approach issues on Wikipedia the way you'd troubleshoot a glitch. The challenge with Wikipedia isn't a technical one, it's a social one. Wikipedia works through consensus. Almost everything on Wikipedia works via consensus. Even the policies and guidelines we're subject to were created by and refined by consensus; people getting involved in discussions and coming to an agreement. You have to collaborate, which requires a few things. It requires you to assume other editors are trying to make things better the same way you are (until you are given absolutely unambiguous evidence that they aren't). It requires that you are able to clearly express your ideas, and in such a way that others can understand you. It requires that you are able to make compromises, and sometimes concede that you're wrong. Above all, though, it requires you to make an effort to solve problems through discussion.

Reverting someone's edits (either through an "undo" action, or removing something that someone added, or re-adding something that someone removed) repeatedly is considered an edit war and is disallowed. If you get into a situation where you have to continue to do that with someone, you need to stop and instead take to a talk page. Jeh was also guilty of this on the Ntoskrnl.exe article, but at the very least Jeh made a suggestion on your talk page (that you never responded to). In any case, you need to stop being belligerent with people. Wikipedia is not the place where you can apply your technical knowledge to make improvements and expect them to stick because of your expertise. What matters is what you can back up with reliable sources in order to verify what you assert, and what also matters is your ability to be constructive in dealing with others who disagree with you. If you lack either the ability or intention to do those things, this project is not for you. -- Atama頭 21:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry... Where did I revert M4t3uz's edits "repeatedly", or even more than once? Jeh (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You reverted M4t3uz's edits one, two, and three times in a slow, 13-day edit war. Note that a revert doesn't have to be a complete reversal of everything that a person adds, it can also include removing part of what a person has added. I did credit you for reaching out to M4t3uz on their user talk page, though you should have followed up when they complained that they were having problems using the sandbox. It was a half-gesture of assistance at least. -- Atama頭 21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs 1 and 2 were about completely different content; and were 43 days apart, not 13. Honestly, is there no "timeout" on 3RR? Once having reverted an editor in a given article, I can never revert that same editor again, even re different content? And your third diff is far from a simple revert - please see the edit comment, and my following edits. As for the "half-gesture of assistance", please check the times. I suggested creating a sandbox... then M4t3uz said he had problems creating it... then I posted that info on his talk page. There was no response that I saw, either on his talk page, or mine, or in the article talk page. I then decided to at least correct the technical errors in the material that was there. The next thing I heard from M4t3uz was a notice of this ANI. Jeh (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Atama, I totally agree with you. You have chose the right words. That's what I tried to convince C. Lisa that Wikipedia is about when I came to Wikipedia - talking, consensus, a community. But that's not happened. The discussions started to heat. And there we have it. About the sandbox, I tried it. The server was trowing an error on me for an unknown reason to me. (I have a screenshot by the way.) --M4t3uz (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

One more thing. Many of the "talks" started by him were barely offensive history page description. --M4t3uz (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jeh Yes I make mistakes. But many are types and many I don't notice when previewing the page. --M4t3uz (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

M4t3uz, can you show me where you asked Codename Lisa to discuss an issue with you and they refused? The closest I can find in your editing history is here, where you said you were annoyed by Codename Lisa for reverting your edits instead of adding "citation needed" tags. Which, by the way, you were incorrect about; an editor has the option to add the citation tag if they believe that the information is correct but still should be sourced, but it is customary to remove information completely if it has not been verified by a source and the editor disputes either its factuality or relevance. Regardless, Codename Lisa replied to that message, twice, and left you notices on your talk page so that you would be aware of those replies, yet you failed to respond at all. That shows that you are talking at other editors, rather than talking with other editors. That behavior needs to change. Right now, this discussion on this noticeboard, it is a positive one and it's a good example of how to resolve these issues. But we possibly wouldn't have had to come to this noticeboard if you had continued the discussion you started. Let me assure you, this noticeboard is a place you don't want to be at. This is where you go when you want an administrator (like myself, or DangerousPanda) to take action, which can include blocking someone temporarily or indefinitely. It's not a good place to take an issue unless you're desperate and really have no other choice. Just know that for the future. -- Atama頭 22:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It was about NTFS. And it was the first interaction I had with a Wikipedian. Hacker Vocabulary (if you are not a programmer): dualboot=someone that runs more than one operating system (e.g. Windows AND Linux) on the same computer; otaku=a smart person who likes Japanese animation. Sorry for bothering. I was really considering leaving Wikipedia. I felt it was necessary. --M4t3uz (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Yes I make mistakes. But many are types" - I assume you mean "typos". Well, text that is riddled with mistakes, typos or otherwise, needs to be corrected or reverted. And if you tend not to notice mistakes when you preview a page, then that is an excellent reason to NOT complain when you are reverted. Or to use a sandbox and let others help you.

btw creating a sandbox has always worked for me whenever I've tried it. When you get a server error, just try again with whatever you were doing a minute or two later. Or, I'll create it for you if you want. Jeh (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That was a typo of the word "typo" on a non-article page. Fine, but that doesn't prove your point of reverting a 300+, 500+ or even a 10000+ edit. Get it? Reverting an entire edit because someone made one or maybe even multiple typos? That's no excuse. I still think you're trying to remove content, for some reason. I'm still trying to guess what the reason is. But I'm not saying it out loud again. :) A revert have consequences that you guys are not considering. --M4t3uz (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The only "consequence" of a revert should be the person who originally made the edit heading over to the article talkpage to discuss their edit, and associated reliable sources. There is no other consequence acceptable the panda ₯’ 23:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

M4t3uz, don't try to "guess what the reason is". I can tell you what you should guess, you should assume that Jeh wants to improve the article, not make it worse. You brought your concern to the admins' incident noticeboard, now you're getting advice from admins. If you continue to personally impugn someone you're in a conflict with and you're not bothering to address their concerns with your editing, you're not even trying to collaborate here. That kind of behavior isn't allowed, do you understand?

Let me try this from a different angle. Why are you on Wikipedia? Are you trying to improve articles? If so, and someone is criticizing your writing, why aren't you trying to improve your writing? If someone is complaining that your information isn't verifiable (and that's a requirement here, verification is the only shred of integrity that Wikipedia has) then why aren't you digging up references for it? If you're not making these efforts, how do you feel you can criticize others for their behavior, or cast doubt on their intentions? -- Atama頭 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

M4t3uz: This is exactly my point: While defending yourself over the quality of your edits, you couldn't even be bothered to not make a typo in a simple four-letter word. And as I said above, typos are FAR from the only issue with your content.

As you may have seen, I have been going through your material correcting the factual errors, and I'm not finished yet (which rather puts the lie to your (very much non-AGF) accusation that I am "trying to remove content"). But even with the tech errors fixed it will still be grossly disorganized. I can do this sort of thing once, to show you that I'm not blowing smoke when I say "riddled with mistakes"... but you should not expect to post such amateurish material and have it remain on Wikipedia for long. It is simply not good enough, and I and the other volunteers here don't have time to clean up after you, not when you present that much to do all at once. Please take it to a sandbox and we can do something constructive with it. Jeh (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Atama. I'm here on Wikipedia to do collaborative editing. By "collaborative", I mean working with people, talking, changing, improving, growing. I consider myself (and people that write here on Wikipedia) content donators. We spend our time to give Wikipedia good quality content. When I make a contribution, I don't want it to be reverted in a fraction of a minute, of course. If someone changes the content I wrote entirely or reverts it, I will talk to him and try to reach an agreement. During my small period here on WP, I did it already and will do it again. That's not what these guys do and this is not an AGF case. I explained to Codename Lisa what I think the WP:V is asking from the users. I'm NOT saying that I disagree with the policies and that I won't follow them. And this is not a AGF case! This discussion has turned against me. @@DangerousPanda a revert may lead to content removal that other users could be learning from. Sometimes a revert is good and sometimes it's not. The later is the case here. (It also lead to server cost, but you guy s know about them) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4t3uz (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda Also, a work that does not exist cannot be improved. All the pages I tried to contribute were somewhat abandoned. If Jeh knows so much about it, why those pages only stubs for so much time? --M4t3uz (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I noted early on, the revert of your edit was a valid revert - no issues about it whatsoever from a policy reason - I would have reverted it myself if I was watchlisting that article. Why have you not moved forward collaboratively to try and discuss adding correct and corrected information to that article? the panda ₯’ 23:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda Why would YOU revert it? Because it's big or because it's bad quality. I said I don't like making huge diff. And if you think that edit and all my edits are of bad quality, that's OK. I'll just leave because someone else will transform that stubs in a full fledged articles.--M4t3uz (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The size of the edit would have drawn my attention, the instant note of spelling mistakes would have caused the revert. Hence the original suggestion: change SLOWLY. Preview often. Discuss. This whole thread wouldn't need to exist if you have followed WP:BRD as it's written. Being reverted is not an insult, so don't take it as one the panda ₯’ 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Add: nobody is saying "you suck, go away". They're saying "take your time, use proper references, do things in small chunks, discuss before making significant changes, don't be mad if reverted because it gives you a chance to discuss with others" the panda ₯’ 00:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand it, DangerousPanda. Belive me. It's like developing Free Software, small changes of new features and bug fixes because they can be verified by the other contributors. I have proposed a merge, a rename (I have notified the main author even not being required to do so) and I discussed when a contributor changed my edit on IIS. I like talking and discussing too :) --M4t3uz (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Have we reached a conclusion here? Bye.--M4t3uz (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You made the complaint initially. The editors you've complained about don't seem to have done anything requiring administrative action, nor has anything you've done. Other editors have given you advice, which I hope you take to heart. Based on your responses I'm not sure that you have, but I guess we'll see. If you take away anything from this, I hope that you understand that you should focus on the content and ideas, and not on the motivations of other editors. -- Atama頭 01:58, 30 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.

Socking at Rosalie Abella

Blocked IP makes a legal threat and switches IP addresses. Rangeblock possible? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Not bothering to notify. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the article has been semi-protected. For good measure I've range blocked 173.176.40.0/21 for 1 week. Mike V • Talk 01:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: Thanks. I suggested a rangeblock as the original IP had other targets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article, but agree with you two that a rangeblock is a good idea, given the multiple targets. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Old Great Bulgaria and related articles POV-pushing

99.33.211.25 (talk · contribs) has been engaged over the past few days in pushing a peculiar POV/OR version on articles related to the Bulgars (Old Great Bulgaria, Togarmah, Asen dynasty, Kubrat etc). His typical MO includes arbitrary and unexplained, let alone unreferenced, changes in dates, identities of peoples and tribes, the forms of personal or ethnic names, along with rants at relevant talk pages of the complete gibberish variety. Thw same IP account has been engaged in the same sort of activity over at the Bulgarian versions of these articles as well, where he also has been reverted. His talk page is littered with warnings and he has been repeatedly reverted, and blocked a few days ago for 24h with a quite clear explanation of the reasons, but keeps on in the same spirit right after being unblocked. Given the really poor level of English this user displays, there is little hope of a constructive discussion and change of attitude here. Constantine ✍ 08:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for another 72 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute and incivil behavior on Naga, Camarines Sur and Legazpi, Albay

I don't know how to start right from the very beginning, so let me begin from the moment I responded to User:P199's request to intervene.

P199 left a message at the Philippine Wikiproject talk page asking for help in an apparent content dispute between new editors. According to him, "Both articles are being edited by new editors who have an agenda to promote these competing cities. Both articles suffer greatly from WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV issues. Other issues include problematic references, such as references taken out of context and taken from unreliable or biased sources, to support biased claims."

I volunteered to help and I took a good look at the article, as well as that of the edits made by all involved editors and also the comments they left on various talk pages. It is the first time that I've tried reviewing both articles and, consequently, my first time to edit them. After reviewing both articles, I thought of doing some clean ups myself and began with the shorter article, that of Legazpi, Albay. After doing some edits, I moved on to the Naga, Camarines Sur article and did a little bit of cleaning up. Since the Naga article is considerably longer and since it was already past midnight in the Philippines at the time, I decided to take a break and write a message on the Naga talk page. Since I was still confused as to which of the editors are on which side, I avoided mentioning any specific user in my reply; rather, I gave reminders on policies that are relevant to the issue, and asked the involved editors to discuss their differences in a civil manner.

Hours later (or specifically, around 11 in the morning), User:Unique Albay responded to my Talk post and, among others, said that:

• I wasn't neutral in my post ("even if your post seeks neutrality, it doesn't appear to be such" / "This alone creates serious doubt as to your neutrality");
• he took great concerns over the article for the simple fact that he lives in the Philippines' Bicol Region, where both cities are located ("I am crying foul because my beloved city was vandalized, over and over again." / "As a Bicolano and as a resident of this region, I know all too well which are true and which are false! Again, I have time and time again said that I am all here for truth and nothing else.");
• and that I was being unfair in that I applied most of my edits at that point to Legazpi, but not to Naga.

Realizing that I overlooked this last point, I said in my next reply that it was already already too late in the evening for me at the time, so I decided to just leave the message first and call it a night, and come back to editing the articles the next day. I also mentioned the following points:

• I reminded him that as Wikipedia is a community project, no single user has ownership (or at least can claim entitlement on solo editing) of a Wikipedia article; and
• edits that introduce new information must be accompanied by proper citations (he restored an edit with a comment that the information he's restoring is referenced, but the restored edits did not cite a specific source);

Not happy with my response, he came back with another reply---with a new section heading titled "Tito Pao's Double Standards"---and said that:

• he still doubts my neutrality;
• the issue of article ownership is irrelevant since he did not bring it up;
• I "tolerated" edit warring (I'd like to note, though, that I did mention earlier that edit-warring should be avoided; it was P199 who actually described the situation as "edit-warring" when he left his notice in WT:TAMBAY;
• he provided sources in Legazpi and yet why did I let other edits in Naga remain unsourced; and
• he also edited his User page to provide more information about himself.

It seemed to me that he did not address some of the concerns I raised in my first reply, so on my next reply, I said that:

• he hasn't pointed out any clear bias on my part, other than the fact that I edited Legazpi first and hasn't come back to Naga;
• anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, but it doesn't necessarily mean that all edits will almost lead to edit wars;
• I didn't like it that he insinuated that since I stepped in, I have neglected the Naga article, short of him saying that I have full responsibility for cleaning it up. I pointed out that he, too, can clean up the Naga article if he so wishes, and it's not just me who "should" clean it up;
• what may be "undisputed knowledge" to him may not necessarily be "undisputed" for most Wikipedia readers or editors, hence the need to cite sources;
• and more importantly, with regard to WP:OWN, this:

2. It does matter, because in at least one instance, you were asking an admin to block another editor for "vandalism" because of an edit he made in the Legazpi, Albay article (although an admin did respond to your vandalism complaint in WP:AIV and ruled that the "vandal" edits you complained about were not vandal edits). You even said in your Talk page comment, "There is too much vandalism coming from that city for some odd reason only few people know. However, I could not reveal what their intentions and purposes are. I am only here to restructure the wiki page of Legazpi, which is badly-damaged by some people with evil intentions."

I don't know---and I don't care and I don't even want to know---what those reasons are, but by bringing that up in the talk page, it seems to me that your only intention for signing up for a registered account in Wikipedia is to focus on editing only the Legazpi, Albay article for a specific reason that you care so much about, and protect it against unwanted edits that do not satisfy you. In other words...it appears that you want to take ownership of the article. Are you trying to tell me that because of some particular reason, you're the only person qualified to edit the Legazpi, Albay article? Was it really necessary to stress that most other people who would edit the Legazpi City article have "evil intentions"?

I must admit that those were pretty strong words on my part (and I'm ready to take a hit for saying it that way), but I felt it necessary to support it with diffs, hoping that he would at least explain why he took that course of action. I also asked why there was a need to bring up his personal circumstances, as I don't see a reason why it would matter in the content dispute.

Instead, what I got was this reply, with the following points raised:

• I am not competent to edit the Naga or Albay articles;
• the edits other people made were politically motivated;
• he still reiterated that I should just spend time editing the article to settle the issues surrounding it instead of reminding him of Wikipedia policies; and
• (in his own words) "Re last par.: I hope you have read the complete version of the article. But I should just assume that you have. I am quite surprised to know though that you do not recognize its relevance. I will give you more time to realize the relevance of competence, knowledge, and personal background to the editing of articles on an ENCYCLOPEDIA"

At that point, I was already exasperated with the tone and manner of his replies, so I left one last message on the Naga talk page, to wit:

• I pointed out his insistence on putting the entire burden of cleaning up the Naga article, when he could have also cleaned it up himself;
• I also pointed out that he claims he is not assuming bias on my part, yet the words he chose does that;
• I also mentioned that the way he worded his replies (and by telling me that I am "not competent enough" to edit anything related to the Bicol Region) could provide a potential conflict of interest situation on his part (e.g. something like "I'm from Bicol, I know Bicol more than anyone else, so I'm the only person competent enough to edit Naga and Legazpi and you're not because you're not Bicolano"; also probably implied by what he wrote in his User page).

(I don't know if this might matter, but...I've never been in either Naga or Legazpi, and neither am I related to anyone living there. So there.)

You may notice that I have mentioned just this piece of correspondence between me and Unique Albay, but I haven't even mentioned events that came before it. May I present to you the following relevant links on the matter, mostly with what came before I stepped in this issue:

Article histories

• Naga
• Legazpi City

in the Article Talk namespace

• [187]
• [188]

in the User Talk namespace

• [189]
• [190]
• [191]

To be honest, I would have wanted to just move on and leave the matter to rest, but I think it would be better if other administrators can look into this matter and help resolve it. I don't think, given the circumstances, there's anything more I can help with the issue, unfortunately. I leave it up to the admins at this point.--- Tito Pao (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

TBH I'm not that sure on how to settle this, either. But seeing how insistent Unique Albay is in spite of being caught red-handed something needs to be done. I can be rude-mouthed at times if you ask me, but keeping a cool head on such matters should always be a first option rather than cussing and/or name-calling fellow editors like what you did to Tito Pao. If you don't agree with me or Pao, fine, but remember we have policies here, and based on what you stated on the articles' respective talk pages, as well as your user page, it seems apparent that you're pushing something. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1. When did I cuss?

2. When did I name-call?

3. What are the instances?

4. What are my violations?

Unique Albay (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Let us settle this once and for all. I am sorry Tito Pao that I have been so harsh on you but let me clarify though that I have neither cussed nor called you names. Please review everything we have discussed. If you see one portion where I did any of those, please point them out to me because I have never done any of those in my life nor will I ever do them for the rest of my life.

2. I have been so harsh on you because I could not believe you would resort to excuses like "having no time, etc etc." I have told you that if you are trying to solve or settle issues (here on Wiki, and wherever you may go), you should not only be neutral but also appear to be neutral. Appearance of neutrality is just as important as being neutral. You may not see this on the Wiki policies. However, I am currently working in the legal system and we settle controversies/disputes on a daily basis. It is a must that anybody who wishes to settle disputes/controversies must be beyond taint of bias. That means, the arbitrator or whoever settles the issues as a neutral party must not only be neutral but also appear to be neutral. Why? Because it creates trust and confidence on the neutral party. I feel like even if you try to seek a neutral point, it is not enough. Even if you say you are from somewhere else and you do not even have connections to Bicol, I could not easily believe that. We are all anonymous here so sandboxes are not easy to believe in. I have not known you nor never met you. From my point of view, you are just some stranger whose background I do not know. Neutrality can never be shown by some assertions made by the person who claims to be neutral. It must be accompanied by outward acts.

3. The competence I meant was for settling the issues via posting some ground rules. Lack of competence was due to lack of neutrality or prudence to appear neutral. I did not mean to say you are not competent from editing. This was what I said: "You are not competent enough to try to attempt to settle these issues."[192] There is a big difference between the two. They belong to different dimensions. Sure you can do some editing if you want, nobody stops you but to settle the issues is another issue.

4. Re your statement, "I pointed out his insistence on putting the entire burden of cleaning up the Naga article, when he could have also cleaned it up himself." >> I do not wish to clean it up for fear of being charged of edit warring. Hence, I have only edited it once. After my edits were undone, I just voiced myself up in the talk page and accompanied my statements with references/citations.

5. Re your statement, "I also mentioned that the way he worded his replies (and by telling me that I am "not competent enough" to edit anything related to the Bicol Region) could provide a potential conflict of interest situation on his part (e.g. something like "I'm from Bicol, I know Bicol more than anyone else, so I'm the only person competent enough to edit Naga and Legazpi and you're not because you're not Bicolano"; also probably implied by what he wrote in his User page)." Again, what I meant by lack of competence was lack of neutrality or at least lack of prudence to appear neutral.

6. Re "conflict of interest(e.g. something like "I'm from Bicol, I know Bicol more than anyone else, so I'm the only person competent enough to edit Naga and Legazpi and you're not because you're not Bicolano"; also probably implied by what he wrote in his User page):" >> I have never said that. It was taken out of context. Oh, here's my user page anyway: [193]. I didn't say any of those statements on my user page. However, I am of firm belief that residents' POV are not necessarily unreliable because they have been part and parcel of the community/ies they belong to. They have witnessed the events that unfolded in their places. They have traveled throughout their respective places. They have witnessed the different parts of the cities/provinces, etc. It is not necessarily unreliable. But I would not go so far as to say that they are infallible. There is a big difference between the two. Neither would I go so far as to claim that residents are the only ones competent enough to make edits. I have never said anything to that effect.

8. Re taint of bias: I have already mentioned this from the very very start. Tito Pao, if you are looking for any incident that taints your neutrality, please look into my very first reply to you. This has gotten very tiring already. You have even admitted that you have "overlooked this last point" referring to your admission that you have not "edited the Naga Page." The act of not editing the Naga Page is one incident that taints your neutrality. Your reason for not editing the Naga Page has become moot and academic now because two days has passed and nothing has changed. You may still be neutral, but judging from the outward acts you have made, I am not going to make a conclusion but I have reason to doubt.

9. All this brouhaha would have never gotten this big had Tito Pao made a disclaimer from the start or at least not to cite instances which are all coming from one side only, or maybe provide a good excuse, or he could have waited until he has already thoroughly checked both pages. My only problem is not competence to "edit" but competence to "solve the issues."

10. Mine: I couldn't see what the admins replied to my report at all. I have looked at the article page of Vandalism but everything is gone now. Also, when I compared my edit to the last edit, there's no mention at all of any response. Hence, there seems to be either no response or it was hidden. Be it noted, further, that I have used the link Tito Pao provided. I highlighted this part to emphasize that there is no way I would be able to know how I could respond to whatever response the admins have for my report.

11. Lastly, for everybody's peace of mind, we should just move on. I will not think that Tito Pao is not neutral anymore. But please, the very reason why I am having a problem with him is his inability to impress on me a sense of neutrality.

I rest my case.Unique Albay (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the bits in the ref tag so they show. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

More editors required for polar amplification

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.

---

Today, i begun some editing at polar amplification, after a user suggested it, based on my previous edits. However, while still editing and discussing article content on the talk page, user William M. Connolley (talk) reverted without providing an explanation. A little later NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) reverted my edits too and subsequently posted on my talk page, warning me of edit warring. I'm well aware of the 3RR rule and only did two reverts, since both editors failed to provide explanation. I also notice that NewsAndEventsGuy recently begun to follow my edits, and his judgement in at least one case (here, was not accurate. I ask here for the assistance of other experts on the subject to assess the edits and ask both involved editors to start to use the talk page and express explicit what they consider at issue, rather than to disrupt editing. prokaryotes (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please explain the notion of gradually escalating WP:DR to this editor? I tried calling his attention to those options in a recent to-do at the COI noticeboardm, but to little avail apparently. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You mean this COI report? Nothing wrong with that, and the discussion belongs there. Your continued involvement in my edits and related actions are disruptive, since you often revert entire edits based on single wording or just get involved without contributing anything to the articles in question. prokaryotes (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy's page edits show that he did not account for the projected long-term Antarctic amplification (besides, this was pointed out above). Also is he confusing page content and doesn't consider references, which have been heavily cited on the talk page and in my article version. After addressing his concerns, I've asked the editor to revert his edits, which are not an improvement. prokaryotes (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Further edits from NewsAndEventsGuy show that he doesn't acknowledges the references given Nature study, or per IPCC AR5 chapter 11 p 983 & 12 p 1031). NewsAndEventsGuy should read the references given, to avoid confusion, however he makes statements such as I have not looked up the cited references. Thus, he should not interfere with active editing. prokaryotes (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of receiving potshots I'd rather discuss the question I posted seventeen minutes before your last remark. Found hereNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I already explained it to you several times, here with reference], and here in a detailed explanation, how you should act in the first place. prokaryotes (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to be specific! However, in good faith you have inadvertently made sort of a WP:VAGUEWAVE by accidentally posting links to various versions of the entire talk page. Please review WP:DIFF and then try again, to show me the precise comments in which you say you explained how your proposed first sentence is an improvement over the original. I generate diffs via the page history, and using the little radio buttons on the right. Copy and paste the resulting url. (There is probably an easier way, which I would be glad to learn.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The specific diffs you have asked for, here and here. prokaryotes (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have followed up at the article talk page here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion, revert to my version, and keep the first sentences intact and or add tagging as you require, this way your concern is addressed and mine. Then we figure out how the wording should be, or go ahead and edit my 1st sentence, otherwise i have nothing to add so far. prokaryotes (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline, but am willing to talk about indivdual parts in new thread(s) at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Disruptive editing by NewsAndEventsGuy

There has been a disruptive pattern recently when the user NewsAndEventsGuy, follows my page edits or reverts edits, without prior discussing it.

Global Warming

On April 15, NewsAndEventsGuy and William M. Connolley) reverted my entire edits to global warming. A part from my edit was at issue, but William M. Connolley did not explained this when he reverted my edits. In the following talk page discussion, it became clear that i conflicted a particular external climate forcing. However, i decided i leave editing at that article to other editors, but pointed out the rest of my edits. NewsAndEventsGuy, later added the external links part from me but forgot parts and added or removed wrong links. He also did not addressed various other article additions, which he did not even commented on.

Earth's energy budget

NewsAndEventsGuy, removed important info from image caption and adds wrong tagging and makes a unnecessary revert.

Sea ice emissivity modelling

NewsAndEventsGuy, removes page notification for deletion request, without prior discussion and later stating that he doesn't feel competent enough to edit the article. In a subsequently COI issue related to the article the editor NewsAndEventsGuy claimed i attacked an editor. However, my initial deletion request for the page, is echoed by other experts.

Polar amplification

As discussed, did the editor revert entire article edits, based on a single word. He did not revert to the particular edit, but everything. He also stated that he did not looked into the cites. Besides several attempts to explain with reliable sources to NewsAndEventsGuy that the word in question is valid or that he could just change the word he has issue with, the editor heavily expands the talk page discussion, adds new sections, on a stub article where he never before was engaged.

Conclusion NewsAndEventsGuy should not get engaged in article edits until he has studied the related science and should not engage with to many articles, since his judgment is not always good. He should not revert entire edits based on his point of view. He should discuss edits prior to reverting. He should not use talk pages as a place to over and over discuss the science and accept references, rather than to question reliable sources. He also posted randomly on my talk page in the past days, here. Granted the user makes good oversight on the subject of climate change, but not always on subjects he is new in. Therefore i ask here that the editor sticks to what he knows and throttles back his engagement on various articles i post and is welcome to ask question on talk pages. prokaryotes (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Response by NewAndEventsGuy

(A)I'll watch this thread but am not going to reply in this thread until some admin is involved.

(B)I will continue to WP:FOC in the climate articles where this editor has made a sudden splash of large scale un-announced article overhauls.

(C)It would be helpful for some uninvolved admin to explain gradually escalating WP:DR for handling content disputes to this ed.

(D)It might also be helpful if someone provides him with the formal notice about ARBCC and to log the notice here.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that we could resolve the issues for now. However, i strongly recommend for future engagements, to better assess reverts, and to isolate issues (tagging or single reverts), without removing consensus items. prokaryotes (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Boomerang review of Prokaryotes requested

I'd like to ask that a WP:BOOMERANG review result in hooking up Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) with a WP:MENTOR; but I need to be mentored about how to ask that! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

PS Oh.... I just found Wikipedia:MENTOR#Involuntary_mentorship and see that its track record is abysmal so mentoriing is probably wasted wishing. Still admin review requested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, is confusing my ANI request for assistance of experts and outlining of the situation with something. I did not file a report about his pattern of following my edits, and did not escalate the discussion, to focus on the content. Today, both our edits are basically in agreement, thus this report here should be closed and it would be nice if NewsAndEventsGuy could agree to what i just concluded, rather than to sidetrack. prokaryotes (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Note that this article is now under |discretionary sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and I thanked you for that yesterday, but I'd rather not pull that lever. Any other ideas? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we could not find a common ground in the edits discussed previously? prokaryotes (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that an admin look at this complaint in terms of WP:BOOMERANG. I think you are familiar with that, or should be, since you earlier incurred a boomerang topic ban here, with many eds mentioning WP:COMPETENCY. I am intentionally not posting the links to those archives. Note that they were referring, I think, to the ability to apply wiki guidelines to work with others smoothly and graciously, and not your technical knowledge about various subjects. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a boomerang ban and i don't know exactly what you referring to. For me this discussion is over, if you need to pull something new now, i guess that is up to you. prokaryotes (talk) 14:37, 30 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.

Ihardlythinkso violating his IBAN

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.

---

Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) and MaxBrowne (talk · contribs) were placed under a mutual interaction ban on April 18 [194]

Six hours later he violated the ban by mentioning MaxBrowne and the "narcissist" comment [195], he was cautioned by Doc9871 [196]

He has continued bringing up MaxBrowne's "narcissist" comment twice in an ANI thread above. First on April 28, then again on April 30. Interaction bans prohibit the affected users to "reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". On the face, the latter two edits are direct complaints against The Bushranger (talk · contribs) for not calling "classic narcissist" a personal attack, but they are also clear references to the conflict he had with MaxBrowne and his conduct, something that the interaction ban was implemented to stop.

For violation of the interaction ban despite the caution, I propose a block of 24 hours at this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who should be sanctioned, admin Sjakkalle, for attempting to turn something into something it is not. (Something = admin Bushranger's credibility identifying what is or isn't PA, into something I've been very careful to avoid in compliance with the referred-to IBAN.) I admit I made an out-of-compliance reference initially, but corrected that mistake in good-faith immediately. Your opening this ANI is clearly a hostile and bad-faith intentional misinterpretation to carry out your aggresive agenda against me, and that kind of hostile move is not becoming of admin, and, I think you know that. (Your complaint should be on AN board anyway, not ANI, and I think you know that, too. But ANI is infamous for it's mud-throwing cesspool nature, and I suppose that was your first choice, huh!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And as long as you have publicized things here, I would like to survey any responders whether they do or don't think if they were called on Wikipedia a "classic narcissist" that it would quality as a PA or not. (But I don't need to hear from you on the matter, Sjakkalle, because you already opined that being called such a name is simply "not helpful". [And I likewise don't need to hear from admin DangerousPanda on the matter, since his response was "So what if you're a narcissist?" And I *especially* don't need to hear from admin The Bushranger on the matter, since he has already made clear he thinks said name-call is not a personal attack [and in fact on my user Talk, wrote that the name-call was not a PA but merely "calling a spade a spade", essentially making the same name-call himself, against this reg editor/me! {Is that admin-worthy assessment and comment??}] Not to mention that said admin ignored said name-call, but *blocked* me when I made a baited response, for [you guessed it!] "personal attack".) Pinch me, is this site real, or am I writing in a live comic book in a dream?? (How high on the abusive wall do you admins want to climb, anyway?!) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else you don't want to hear from? Perhaps you might want to think about it while you're sitting out your soon-to-be-coming block for so obviously and egregiously violating your IBAN? BMK (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

He obviously does not understand what an IBAN is and/or does not believe it matters, I would agree with a block to show that the admins are serious. TheMesquito^buzz 14:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I could see the first comment being a blatant violation of the IBAN. However, the following diffs where they bring up that comment, I would not call a violation. The "classic nascissist" comment is being used as a very big stick to flog a very dead horse and quite frankly rather than being worthy of a sanction, it's only worthy of pity. It's pitiful that IHTS can't let go of their grudge and has to chew it over and over like mouthfuls of stale vomit. It's pitiful that they attempt to place themselves as the centre of attention in threads that have utterly nothing to do with them. If anything, IHTS's pattern of behaviour is proving the truth in the comment that they take such umbrage at and it's really pitiful that they don't see it. Blackmane (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is what I think, Ihardlythinkso. I think calling someone a narcissist is a personal attack, it quite clearly fits the definition at WP:NPA. Having said that, it's known that bringing up that term is a reference to MaxBrowne, and asking whether or not it's an attack is an indirect criticism of someone you are not allowed to reference per your interaction ban. I don't call it blatant enough for a block at this point but don't do it anymore, or I will block you if no one else does. -- Atama頭 15:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ihardlythinkso does not need "confirmation" that the original statement about being a "classic narcissist" was a personal attack - the original AN/ANI discussion that led to the IBAN clearly specified that the statement was inappropriate but based on severity, expectations of recidivism, the fact that further action on the comment was going to be punishment not prevention, MaxBrowne CLEARLY understood the warning over that kind of name-calling in the future. In fact, MaxBrowne directly accepted the IBAN without further discussion. I repeat: MaxBrowne was warned to not repeat. The "narcissist" situation was CLOSED as actionned appropriately based on circumstances. Now, IHTS's comment above is clearly taking things out of context in order to ratchet up the rhetoric. Although I don't recall saying "so what if you're a narcissist", the context of the statement was not "you're" as in "him" ... it was a generic "so what if anybody is a narcissist". I mean, I'm OCD...so what?. In the long run, IHTS is guilty of flogging the horse so bad that he's now got to be blocked for violating the IBAN - there's little option here the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:27, 30 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.

Coolie

Short and sweet. Could someone uninvolved keep an eye on coolie or perhaps explain why a large number of recent semi-random editors (mostly IPs) seem determined to crudely remove any instances of the word "slave" or "slavery" from it? This doesn't look like an on-wiki content dispute, and it's being done so poorly as to break bits of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it's the same user (Richey90211), whom I've warned and notified of this discussion. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'ed it - probably best that everyone edit with named accounts on the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A puzzling editor

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

---

An IP editor initiated a page move request at Lynx (spacecraft), an article I've had my eye on for some time due to the high number of links directing traffic to a commercial website, in this case that of the craft's builder XCOR.

There is nothing wrong with a long-term editor choosing to use an IP address rather than establish an account. It is rare, but it happens. Likewise, an established editor may sometimes be logged out and make an edit or two before logging back in. It happens. However, on checking this editor's contributions, I noticed the IP address was first used a week ago, beginning a week of solid editing, including many strings of edits a minute or so apart, each one showing the skill and knowledge of an experienced editor. I raised this on the talk page, asking if there was any explanation available. The editor has responded, but given no explanation of what's going on and what other accounts they have used.

Is anyone able to come up with an explanation of what's going on? I'm not - yet - making any suggestions of improper behaviour. It's just, well, odd. --Pete (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As Skyring/Pete says, there's nothing wrong with editing with an IP address. So I fail to see why he's claiming "unbelievable history" and "paid editing", as he himself says there are editors who edit with IP addresses longterm. He also said in the discussion, that my edits didn't seem wrong either. It seems he himself already has explanations. Dynamic IP address allocation will change IP addresses, so it isn't very surprising to start an IP address history with knowledgeable edits either. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The explanation is simple: some editors prefer not to have accounts. This is simply more bad faith with regards to this subject from Pete, who refuses to drop the stick that the Lynx article is somehow promotional. This statement, especially, is the complete opposite of AGF. I'd advise Pete to look out for the WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• The bigger question is "are any of their actions problematic?" Is the move request a reasonable one, even if some will disagree or agree? Is the behavior problematic? Some people leave/retire, but then come back as an IP and do some small things. That really isn't sockpuppetry. To be socking, there has to be "abuse", ie: overlapping edits where they are voting twice in the same discussion, or two accounts in an edit war to prevent one from going over WP:3RR. Are they a banned or blocked user? Maybe, but unless there is abuse or something that points to a specific user, and as long as their edits are "normal", then we have to assume good faith. Maybe keep an eye on, but assume good faith. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point of bringing a case to ANI of an IP editor who is editing well and not being disruptive. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ahunt. You suggested WP:SPI but I don't know the base or previous account of this editor, so I chose this route, looking for clarification. I note the IP editor has now suggested - but not stated - that dynamic IP address allocation is involved. If this is the case, then perhaps it could be stated and the previous IP addresses noted? My concern is that Wikipedia is being used here to direct traffic to a commercial enterprise, as opposed to industry news outlets and government sources. It would be helpful if the IP editor was more forthcoming. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, bringing this to ANI is jumping the gun a bit, wouldn't you say? AN/I is for pressing issues that require quick administrator intervention. I understand Pete tried to discuss this with the editor on the article talk page, but this is something that should be discussed with the user themselves on their talk page first, which from the looks of it Pete hasn't done yet. Honestly, good editing shouldn't be cause for suspicion (as I myself came in prepared, having been on Wikia for a while before editing Wikipedia) but Pete throwing around accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence and taking them to AN/I before the usual methods of Dispute Resolution shows bad faith. If you have a problem with the page being renamed, discuss it on the talk page, not the editor who propsed it. Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As linked above, I discussed this with the editor on the article talk page. Their evasions prompted me to seek further input. Happy to take this discussion to a more suitable location. --Pete (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Pete, what you are asking for is a fishing expedition. If there isn't a problem, there isn't anything to investigate. SPI would be a bad idea, and when I was a clerk I would have just closed it without action. If there is no abuse, there is nothing to investigate and it will just make you look like you are forum shopping. This is nothing but suspicion, bordering on paranoia. If any of the sources are problematic, replace them, but we can't take action for what someone might do in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What I'm asking for is a reasonable explanation of some very odd behaviour. People don't just come in out of the blue and make a string of skilled edits and then refuse to disclose any previous history. That's just weird. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes they do, even if it isn't as common as having a registered account. Again, you are wanting us to take a situation where there is no evidence of bad behavior, and find some bad behavior (socking, etc.). That is the de facto definition of a fishing expedition. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited for months using a series of random IP's that were given to me by my old ISP every couple of days. So my first edits under an account were reasonable quality. Not sure why Pete sees this entire situation as something fishy ... WP:AGF is a key around here the panda ₯’ 00:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are many IP editors. But generally they are happy to admit - as you just did - their previous experience. Not to worry. I think this bloke is a sockpuppet of some sort but I won't take it any further now. I'll just keep digging. Thanks for the assistance, and this can probably be closed now. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

New SPA replacing academic material with his own personal commentary in several articles

Self-admitted SPA Tenzinwestcoast (who says he has "spent the last 18 years practicing Kadampa Buddhism") is replacing academic material with his own personal commentary in several articles. Heicth (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A few diffs would be helpful here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Diffs aren't needed, they only have 15 total edits and all look problematic. And, as someone pointed out, their style, timing and choice of articles is so remarkably like the blocked editor User:Truthsayer62, that it seems unlikely it is a coincidence. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In 2008, Truthsayer62 claimed to have 14 years experience, this new editor claims to have 20 years experience 6 years later (compare their user pages). That combined with the other evidence Dennis Brown gave above is enough for me to call this a sockpuppet per WP:DUCK. I'm blocking. -- Atama頭 23:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted a second opinion, but I was thinking it was quacking pretty loud as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just as a request, even when it's a clearly quacking duck, please pop the block notice onto the pages? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

editor uses foul language and even resorts to homophobic insult, "fag"

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

---

Editor I3roly undoes revision using foul language ("bullshitting") and gratuitous insults (e.g., "econfag"), in direct violation of WP:PA. See revision 606552252 and corresponding summary (23:48 April 30th) on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statistical_learning_theory&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jala Daibajna (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

i stand by comments. this guy thinks he has the right to insult a very high breed of mathematics for his own benefit. how dare he. do you know what it takes to do SLT? i don't think you do, rookie. instead you pop data into weka and think you're a master. you're nothing. shut your mouth. to the editors: i challenge you, as recreational scientists, to explain to me the validity or applicability of high pedigree mathematics (SLT) to "economic physics". it is an insult. i would consider myself quite proficient in this area and find your attempt to relate us to your garbage as extremely offensive. stop it. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I3roly (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked For being a giant homophobic dick as well as a few vandalism edits which should've earned a block awhile ago.--v/r - TP 04:43, 1 May 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.

Grinberg Method

On the 28th I removed the following sentence from Grinberg Method:

“These former teachers and trainer, were licensees of the method whose license for teaching the Grinberg Method was revoked due to misconduct, violation of the methods Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and participation in the pyramid scheme, an unlawful financial conduct.”

It was sourced to this. The source does not mention a pyramid scheme. It does not mention criminal acts. It does not mention revocation of licensure. And it only mentions one individual having been dismissed for ethical problems.

Dulume reinserted the offending text without adding a reliable source to support the claim of “unlawful financial conduct”. I removed the text again, and I explained to Dulume that he needed a reliable source on his talk page. He has since reinserted the sentence without adding a reliable source.

I understand that accusations of criminal activity are a serious matter so I thought it best to raise this issue here rather than the edit warring noticeboard. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just after you removed the text again, Dulume re-inserted it. I also checked the sources Dulume gave and found nothing in them that mentioned pyramid schemes or criminal acts, so I've removed it and left him a non-template note on his page spelling out why it was removed and that he has to use a source that says that this is or was a pyramid scheme explictly.   KoshVorlon   11:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this article from Vocativ might be useful. The Grinberg Method article looks like it needs a lot of attention. There seem to be some obvious WP:SYNTH violations in there e.g. in the Shifting attention from mind to body section. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Zeshan Mahmood - Copyrights violation

• Zeshan Mahmood (talk · contribs)

This user is persistently creating articles with copyright violating content and doesn't seem to pay heed to any of the advises at his talk. Can an admin please have a look. -- SMS ^Talk 20:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• De728631 blocked him for 72 hours. Might be worth sifting through the contribs for obvious violations that haven't been picked up yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Dennis beat me to this update, but he's right in that there's more work to do. I've already found an unattributed copy from simple.wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've already found at least one article, Jinnah and Kashmir that was deleted under A7/11 but was also infringing. This is a bit of an uphill battle. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• De728631 (and others), please don't issue temporary blocks to serial copyright violators unless you're planning on actively monitoring the user's edits for several months following the expiry of the block. Drive-by warnings and temporary blocks rarely end up correcting the user's behaviour. All too often the user ends up slipping under the radar; months or years later someone notices another copyvio of theirs, and we end up opening a massive WP:CCI with hundreds or thousands of articles to painstakingly check. These users need to indicate that they understand why they were blocked, and undertake not to engage in further unauthorized copying or plagiarism, before being allowed to edit again. The only way of doing this is to block indefinitely and engage them in conversation. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#Copyright help needed for further information on this. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone that has 38 edits total can't be classified as a serial copyright violator. And I've already explained in plain English what they did wrong, and pointed them to where they can learn how to avoid getting blocked in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I doubt he will listen. He is on track to become exactly the type of editor I complained about in the above thread. MER-C 13:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for taking the time to explain to the user what he did wrong. However, keep in mind that as he has been completely uncommunicative so far, we have no evidence that he has read, understood, and agreed with your explanation. I hope you or others will check back occasionally to make sure he's corrected the problem with his editing. (Unlike other types of disruptive editing, such as spamming and personal attacks, copyright violations are frequently overlooked because they resemble good edits. If this user resumes his copyvios, this may not be apparent to other editors who have not already encountered him.) If you can find the time, please also consider stopping by at WP:CCI to help process the enormous backlog of cases where this didn't happen. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The fact that I've taken the time to explain and offer a place to go for help will make it much easier for someone to indef block them next time if they do not engage or take heed, as they have been given all the information they need to comply with community standards. Those messages do serve two purposes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• @De728631 and @Dennis Brown, as soon as the block expired he is back to creating COPYVIO articles: Kashmir Black Day and Rajputana Liberation Front, one of which is a recreation of the earlier CSDG12 speedied article. -- SMS ^Talk 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• His article was also quickly tagged by CorenSearchBot as a Copyright Violation [197] and he deleted the Copyvio tag [198], which I restored. This seems to indicate that he knows what he's doing. Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've revoked his editing privileges. MER-C 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with the block. I know this seems long winded to some editors to have to block twice, but as admin, we must give the benefit of the doubt to a new user and give a short block first in cases like this, then escalate it as needed. Policy (ie: community consensus) dictates if the problem might could be solved with education, we try education first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course we always initially assume good faith and competence, and try education first; this was already done before the first block in this case. What is at issue here is what to do once education has already failed. Temporary blocks are a great next step for many types of disruptive editing, such as personal attacks and edit warring, since these usually result from heightened tensions which can be defused by enforcement of a cooling-off period. But they're largely ineffective for other problematic behaviours, such as spamming and copyright violations, where there's no heated emotional impetus to the activity, and where the perpetrators don't understand or don't care that their edits are causing a problem. Here the only hope of a real solution is usually to go back and pursue the education angle until the user is able to articulate, in their own words, an understanding of and agreement with the relevant policies. Until then their editing needs to be either restricted or closely monitored. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, he got a short block and when that didn't work and he continued to infringe, he got an indef block, which seems appropriate. And remember, just because he is blocked, that doesn't mean he has left Wikipedia forever. That is why the middle steps are so important. Often, it is less work to try to educate than play whack-a-mole. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Persistent removal of AfD tags

user:107.219.204.241 continues to remove AfD tags from The Squids despite repeated warnings, including a Final Warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Was blocked 31 hours for the same a few days ago, I just blocked for a week as his first act off block was to do the same thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reports need to be combined

In the course of identifying previous SPI reports for editors showing similar behaviour to one I was reporting, I discovered at least two archived reports which are obviously for puppets of the same master, and should be combined. The ones I identified are for Azul411 (earliest report 10 September 2012), and for Selfdelusivecontradictoryliar (earliest report 13 September 2013). Others have recently been combined, but sockpuppets are listed under a puppet rather than the puppeteer; I am currently correcting this. RolandR (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, clerking SPI pages should only be done by SPI clerks. Normally, they don't even want admin doing that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• So where should I request this, as the archives and reports should clearly be combined? RolandR (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations should draw the attention of the clerks.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)