Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive859

Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

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 also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

Yes. Yet another Ryulong (talk · contribs) thread. This time he mass-deleted language articles just by labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields:

• languages with ISO 639-3 codes (i.e., Ethnologue entries): Tokunoshima language[1], Okinoerabu language[2], Yoron language[3] and Northern Okinawan language[4], and
• their supergroups: Amami–Okinawan languages[5], Amami languages[6], Amami language[7], Okinawan languages[8] and Kunigami language[9],

where I contributed substantially using a dozen of published sources (some of which are available online). This is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen since I joined Wikipedia in 2003.

Of course, labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields alone does not justify mass deletion. Otherwise one can revert any change s/he does not like. So his comment is synonymous with "I HATE YOUR EDIT!!!"

Ryulong is a regular at this incident noticeboard and is very familiar with 3RR and other conflict related stuff. But he has a fundamental misunderstanding on what Wikipedia is. Given the fact that he is an experienced user, there appears no hope that he would amend his behavior. I think the only feasible solution is to keep him out of Wikipedia. Any suggestions (especially on procedural details)? --Nanshu (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:RFC/U (that said, don't use such pejorative rhetoric there, or you won't get far) the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  I raised the edits in question on the Japanese WikiProject's page and another editor agreed that these divisions were not accepted by the linguistic community at large. The primary article on this language family only suggests that there are six when Nanshu created articles on five undiscussed languages. Nanshu has been particularly mad at me whenever I disagree with his edits, and this is frankly nothing new. He did not have to come here to this board first when he could have responded to the discussion at WT:JAPAN about his very issue. I see no such attempt. I will be restoring the articles to the versions prior to Nanshu's vast and u discussed changes, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  Nanshu has also been warned in the past over his unnecessary attacks against me whenever I dispute his expertise on these topics. While I cannot easily access these threads in the notice board archives right this second,mother can be found. In fact, he was blocked earlier this year for disregarding the warnings he was given for his comments about me. He has called me a disaster at the langauges WikiProject already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  The previous thread is here which includes a warning from Atama, which resulted in a block in May of this year. Nanshu's comments at WT:LANG include claiming "Ryulong sees Wikipedia quite differently from us", has the gem that I am suffering from "Knowledgelessness (or simply ignorance)", "Unteachability and unwillingness to cooperate", claiming I am owning these pages, and referring to me as a "disaster". Atama specifically warned Nanshu that he was not to talk down to me as if he was a teacher and I was his failing student, and this is exactly what Nanshu has done, yet again. He may be a self proclaimed expert in these dying languages, but he cannot work with others.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  I think the real problem is Nanshu's dramaticism. The whole "this is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen" thing, and his acting like some sort of victim of abuse should be evidence of that. He insults Ryulong's competence at WT:LANG multiple times, which he has been blocked for in the past. He has made no attempt at discussion whatsoever, only his complaints here and at WP Languages. He can't deal with criticism and refuses to coöperate with anyone who opposes his views. I will also say that this AN/I post would be about me, or anyone for that matter, had I/someone else had reverted his edits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  Also see this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The various languages for which User:Nanshu created articles (Toku-No-Shima, Yoron, Oki-No-Erabu) are listed as such, i.e. listed as languages, in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, published by Oxford University Press – definitely not a fringe publisher. The IEOL also points out that these languages have no mutual intelligibility with Kunigami, to which Ryulong has redirected them, so I think Ryulong is on shaky ground here content-wise – at any rate this is not a matter that is clear-cut enough for an admin to ride roughshod over a contributor who has invested quite a bit of work to expand content in this area. Andreas JN466 05:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that there are more sources that say there are only six languages in the chain, because traditionally each island claims to have its own language due to isolation and areas of mutual unintelligibility. There is very little coverage of the languages Nanshu made pages for anywhere online, and this is under more discussion at the langauges project. Nanshu simply has a history with me where he sees me as inferior to him in his knowledge on this subject and finds anything I do a danger.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I believe the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics is quite authoritative. [10] (What content can be found online is really quite immaterial here.) 2. If you simply delete the content he creates, you should not be surprised that he sees you as a danger. Andreas JN466 05:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

all I am aware is that for the past several years we have only acknowledged the existence of 6 languages native to the ryukyu chain, and not the 4 new ones he made pages on that are considered dialects of two others and the content fork he made for the fifth because he disagrees with the name given to the language, which is even in the ISO standard. If there's very little documentation on these languages in general, that means they are not accepted as being separate languages as much as they are even referred to as dialects of each other. I also don't know why he has been repeatedly removing the kanji and kana names of these languages from the articles in question, why he has been insistent in his talking down to me, and his complete abhorrence to attempt to form a consensus, as I had started a discussion on this before he flew in a rage here and at the linguistics project. Nanshu is the problem. My stance in not agreeing that these splits, expansions, and the such based on an extremely small handful of paper sources that for all I know do not even discuss these as separate languages but rather dialects within the larger languages (as he has completely ignored one island's supposed separate language) but rather his personal research that he is posting to Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that "more sources" say there are only six languages. If some reliable sources say there are six, and other reliable sources say there are more, then we can and should produce duly weighted material covering both viewpoints, and make a note of the fact that reliable sources disagree. What we do not do is cover only the majority viewpoint and make wholesale deletions of the minority viewpoint. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The minority view point has only ever been presented by Nanshu in the last 72 hours.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then he's in the wrong too, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. You must stop removing reliably sourced content. If you feel it doesn't represent the majority point of view, either add reliably sourced text giving that point of view, or tag the article with {{NPOV}} or some other maintenance tag so that others are aware of the problem and will take steps to fix it. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources combine Amami (and its Northern & Southern split), Kikai (which Nanshu omitted), and Tokunoshima into one language (UNESCO) and Kunigami (what Nanshu redefined as "Northern Okinawa"), Okinoerabu, and Yoron into a second language (UNESCO, again). Nanshu produced these articles using minimal sourcing, reliable or not, to have an entire page full of the extensive IPA information. All of his articles rely on research performed by one individual years ago which defines all of these as dialects (because that's what the Japanese government considers them all) rather than unique languages. Much of the articles he produced were heavily unsourced, including the new classification systematics he came up with to categorize the several new articles he made to justify his rewrites and splits. All I did was restore status quo on something that was in effect a controversial decision. Just because it involves new articles does not make me any more wrong in my behavior than he has been acting.

And this is exactly how he has reacted to me adding information on other languages that he deems that I am a dunce in, such as the dispute over whether or not Hokkaido had a name in Ainu as seen here, the dispute over the use of ï at Kamuiyaki when I found sources that used "kamwiyaki" instead seen here, and a similar issue over the way to write the origin of the colloquial name of the New Ishigaki Airport as seen here. This is not, as Nanshu cries, an issue with me removing content. It is just Nanshu being unnecessarily combative whenever I challenge him and this needs to be stopped, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, but look – you've simply gone and deleted his articles – articles on languages that are listed in the Oxford University Press International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I think that's more combative than his crying foul. I'd become combative if I were in his position. Andreas JN466 13:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What does it say about the languages in said encyclopedia? Let's have a look. There's barely anything about them, and they're all listed under Japanese rather than independent entries that provide any level of information about the language. Because the majority of sources say that the languages he had created pages for are synonymous with each other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) I linked to the relevant page above. For all of them, it says, "Inherent intelligibility is generally impossible or very difficult with other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese." (Note the phrasing "other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese".) Even if these are considered dialects by some scholars or politicians, there is no problem with having sourced articles about them, where such disagreements about classification can be mentioned. Wikipedia has lots of articles about language dialects, and rightly so, as each dialect has its own characteristics that can be studied and described (see Alemannic German etc.); and if there are sources about these properties that satisfy RS, then I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have articles about them. Andreas JN466 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I only just then saw that there's nothing in the book about them except the statement that there is "generally impossble" mutual intelligibility. This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. Every other source Nanshu exclusively used in the articles describes these as dialects (all Japanese sources do this). I do not see this listing in that encyclopedia (effectively one publication's insistence that Kunigami, Okinoerabu, and Yoron are all separate from each other) as reason enough to combine several sources describing them as "dialects" to produce all of the articles on the languages that Nanshu decided to make after he was bold enough to perform a major expansion on the original articles and call me a disaster and continually talk down to me, an act he was blocked for in the past.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice that Ryulong employs the repeat-a-lie-100-times strategy here. He has never proved that I misrepresent a fringe theory as being mainstream. The meaning of "majority" in his mind is quite different from ours. He only relies on the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger. Just compare UNESCO, Ethnologue and Glottolog. You will see they present drastically different classifications. This inconsistency can be attributed to complicated isoglosses reviewed by Karimata (2000). Recent papers including Pellard (2009) and Lawrence (2011) demonstrate that this problem is unsettled. For a complete list of sources, see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong. Ryulong knows nothing about the research history I outlined. And do not forget the most important question: how does this justify mass removal of content with reliable sources? --Nanshu (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You're presenting something which as far as I can tell from the research I've done, and the consensus that has existed on this site for years, is that you are presenting information which is not accepted by the mainstream. There should be more available on these proposed pages in any language than can be found. Below, WP:BOLD is cited by Rdfox 76. So that means WP:BRD should be followed. You were bold in your creation. I reverted (undid the split, and made pages redirects), and there should then be a civil discussion instead of you using your usual tactics of acting like a high and imghty tenured professor and I'm some student who just doesn't get it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, you say, This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. That's simply demonstrably false. For example, in addition to the highly reputable International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, we have Tomoko Arakaki (28 June 2013). Evidentials in Ryukyuan: the Shuri Variety of Luchuan: A Typological and Theoretical Study of Grammatical Evidentiality. BRILL. p. 7. ISBN 978-90-04-25340-7. This says, The contemporary regional varieties of Luchuan can be divided into two large major groups: Northern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the north, and Southern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the south (Uemura 1992). The Northern group is subcategorised into eight kinds of languages, and the Southern group is further subcategorized into three. The Northern varieties consist of Kikai-jima, North Amami Oshima, South Amami Oshima, Tokunoshima, Okinoerabu, Yoron, North Okinawan, and South Okinawan. The Southern varieties are: Miyako, Yaeyana, and Yonaguni (Uemura 1992[2003]; Shimoji & Pellard 2010). P. Heinrich wrote a book chapter on "The Ryukyuan languages in the 21st century global society", published by the University of the Ryukyus. Etc. The sources do not bear you out. As for the wider issue, firstly Wikipedia should reflect any diversity of opinion on whether these are languages or dialects, and secondly, why should it be improper for Wikipedia to have a well-sourced article on each of them? Sources are available. Andreas JN466 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All of this discussion should be happening at WT:JAPAN, where I first raised the issues of his edits, or WT:LANG where Nanshu also started a thread (that way I can pick apart the fact that he constructed IPA tables from sources that as far as I can tell do not use IPA to describe anything). The fact is that regardless of my own mistakes in not finding sources to support his edits, Nanshu has spent most of his edits in this content dispute personally attacking me. Perhaps I was wrong in reverting everything with the term "fringe theory" but Nanshu has spent as much time arguing that he is right and I am wrong as much as he has been calling my edits an act of violence (twice in this very thread), calling me a disaster and lacking knowledge amongst other attacks (in his thread at WT:LANG). Nanshu is being a drama queen about this all. Ever since he and I began having content disputes, he has failed to assume good faith in every instance. I have complained time and time again about his personal attacks towards me whenever we find ourselves editing the same article. I suffered from his attacks in 2010. It happened again in 2013, and I raised it for discussion when it happened again earlier this year. Nanshu has been warned in the past that he should not be talking to me as an inferior being or a child, and he was blocked for it but because he infrequently edits Wikipedia the block basically served no purpose. The only reason he is editing Wikipedia heavily now is because I dared to challenge his expertise. Why else is he constantly acting as if I killed his father and then shat on the grave?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want Nanshu to dial down the rhetoric, I recommend you lead by example rather than exceeding him. All of this is quite unbecoming. Take a break; you can do better than this. Andreas JN466 17:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have documented how Nanshu has done nothing but belittle me whenever I happen to get in his way over disagreements over dying Japanese languages. I do not deserve the abuse that he sends my way just because I disagree with his contributions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, note that Ryulong is trying to obscure the point. This is not split/merge stuff. What he is doing is complete removal of content with reliable sources. I don't think there is a way to defend his misconduct. ---Nanshu (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You split up two articles to make 5 new articles, one of which is just a content fork of one of the original articles, and I reverted that split. You don't go to ANI automatically to cry foul.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Might I make a suggestion at this point from an outside non-admin perspective? Wouldn't the simplest solution here, the one that would likely result in the least gnashing of teeth, and the one that would resolve the situation in complete compliance with WP guidelines and policies, be to temporarily restore the articles and then immediately send them to WP:AFD? Do that, and we can get an outside consensus on whether these qualify for separate articles, or should be merged back into the original ones. The delay would also provide some time to determine if there are additional sources supporting the separate articles; remember, there is no deadline, so waiting a couple of weeks for a final resolution won't hurt anyone.

Without digging deeply into the issue, as this is NOT an area I hold any expertise in beyond one semester of Japanese in college--the second aborted when I realized that my mid-30s was too late to try and learn kanji--my personal opinion would be that Nanshu seems to have made a decent case, based on a reliable source; I don't know if I'd necessarily keep them as separate language articles, but at a minimum, I would retain the information in a merge rather than just revert to status quo ante. Ryulong, I understand that there may be past history involved, but even so, "Be Bold" is one of our pillars, and editors should not be chastised for performing major expansions to provide due weight to a reliably sourced opposition view, even if it hasn't been covered on Wikipedia before--PARTICULARLY in that case, actually; new, reliably sourced material should be welcome for examination and editing for weighting purposes. Only items already discarded by consensus as fringe theories, unsourced and controversial material, and items sourced to unreliable sources should be rejected out of hand. (However, this entire paragraph is my personal belief, based on a mildly inclusionist view of policy and the pillars. Either way, I suspect that an AfD would resolve the issue with much less shouting than an ANI...) rdfox 76 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then there's going to be some policy war on what constitutes the notability of a language. And, again, it's not a reliably sourced opposition view. He used Japanese language research papers defining these as "dialects" and their minimal listings in Ethnologue and that Oxford encyclopedia to justify completely renaming the Kunigami language as the "Northern Okinawan language" and produce pages on the other partially intelligible dialects, new pageso n his own personal means toc lassify allo f thepage s he made, and consistently removing any Japanese language text providing the names of the languages from the article without justifying why. I'm all for a discussion, which is why I started one at WT:JAPAN, but Nanshu went over my head to call for me to be banned because he's dramaticizing everything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I feel that by just blanking pages, Ryulong circumvents the normal deletion procedure, where we need a consensus to delete rather than to add. But I also want to ensure in the ANI that mass removal of content with reliable sources would not happen again. If this kind of violence is tolerated, Wikipedia has no future. --Nanshu (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop saying my edits to turn a bunch of pages into redirects is "violence"? This is ridiculous. This is my problem with Nanshu. He is playing the victim over content which isn't actually gone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, Nanshu is objecting to the fact that you've reverted over 40 edits by him over the past three days across a range of articles. That's bound to piss someone off. I've seen milder actions described as wikistalking, bullying and harassment on this page.

In my view, this situation calls for wider input. The suggestion by rdfox 76 above is a good one. I propose we give Nanshu the time to bring the articles to the sourcing standard he would aspire to, and when he's done, let the community assess notability in a well-prepared AfD which right from the beginning presents all the sources used, and any other sources available that may impact notability (one that Nanshu seems to have missed is Noguchi's "Dialect acquisition and code-switching on Yoron Island", published in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics). Andreas JN466 17:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Rdfox 76's proposal is fine. But Nanshu's behavior is not. He can object to the actions I've done without insulting my intelligence by acting as if he is a professor and I am a student he's given a failing grade.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wider input? Ryulong gets what Ryulong wants, if not by hook than by crook. Look at the history of Ultraman, a Japanese TV show that was widely syndicated in the US. The article had a picture of the hero fighting a monster, demonstrating what Ultraman looked like. Ryulong constantly edit warred to have a screenshot of Ultraman replaced by Japanese text from the opening credits, essentially the same as replacing a picture of Superman with the wrod "Superman!" When a long-term compromise was reached using both the image and the opening credit card (still in Japanese, although this is en.wikipedia) he basically vandalized the sceenshot, which was already a cropped, low res image, and made it of unacceptable quality.

At the same time he complained the picture was of low quality, and insisted on my talk page that I upload a screenshot from another episode more to his liking. He then removed the image, and edit warred to have it replaced with a hi-res image of Ultraman stolen from a commercial website that provided no attribution for its provenance. So now the article has meaningless opening credit shots as its main picture, and a hi-res image stolen from a commercial website offering no license for its use in the text. But Ryulong prefers the monster in that picture, so a stolen hi-res pic is fine. (In the meantime my original fair-use screenshot was deleted as an orphan.)

I have a real life, I don't have time to battle this shi..tuff. Users like Ryulong (who's been blocked how many times now?) make it impossible for adults to edit mainspace constructively. I suggest a

• Lengthy Ban by some admin familiar with all the cases against Ryulong on this board. Oh, and BTW, I am no expert, but I happen to have Cambridge's Languages of Japan and various books by Roy Andrew Miller that contradict Ryulong's bizarre assertion of "fringe theory" here. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Medeis is making a mountain out of a mole hill in the content dispute we had at Ultraman where he was constantly upset that the screenshot he took and uploaded to Wikipedia (File:Ultraman gyango ruffian from outerspace 19660925.JPG) was repeatedly taken out of the infobox by other editors in favor of the show's Japanese (and English) title cards, as is standard practice on every other article on television programs. This is documented on the article's talk page at Talk:Ultraman#Why Can't We Have a Title Card at the Top? where another editor made a statement about the article's usage of Medeis's screencap in the infobox rather than the title card. At no point during the dispute was the file he had uploaded ever removed from the article. It was merely moved to a lower position, as seen here. Not to mention that he blanket reverted much of the article to a point he preferred, which included throwing the English title card into the infobox's "title" section and claiming that Japanese text has no place on an article on a Japanese topic. I could also point out Medeis's constant accusations of sockpuppetry whenever someone reverted him, or claimed vandalism (other reverts and other claims unsupported by policy going back several years). And he is really taking my request for a higher quality, but still small sized image as an unnecessary slight. And then when a different editor uploaded a different image to replace the one Medeis uploaded, Medeis began this narrative on the alternative image (File:Ultraman and Zetton in Thankyou, Ultraman.png) that because the uploader found the image online and uploaded it as a fair use image, it somehow counts as "stealing" because the website the image comes from was as he claims a "commercial website" and thus it was not valid fair use (my message to him here). I assume he's making the same statement about the completely different image I found that is in use on the article (File:Ultraman Festival 2013.JPG) because it's a clear photo from a press junket that has been resized rather than the grainy screenshot of a 1960s television show. This is not a reason to ban me. This is a reason to scold Medeis for holding this stupid grudge all because I dared to defy him, much like I dared to defy Nanshu. And "vandalizing the screenshot" when I resized it to comply with the non-free content policy. Please, Medeis. Grow up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And I've admitted my mistake and wrongdoings in regards to reverting Nanshu. This does not need to become a dogpile of more people who I've somehow slighted by daring to edit the same articles as they do and having some knowledge of policy and the topic that contradicts their actions as Medeis has made it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dogpile? He doesn't deny he downgraded the image or edit warred to have it deleted. Again we see Ryulong is a simple liar. He is the one who both insisted on my talk page that I upload some other image he preferred, and he is the one who downgraded the quality of the now deleted image (since the image was deleted after his edit warring, see an admin for its history). Nothing he says can be trusted, look at his block history, he should be banned for his endless disruption. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about a topic ban or a site ban? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a simple request to you, Medeis, to perhaps produce an image of better quality that more clearly depicted Ultraman and a monster he has fought. Anyone reading your talk page can see that. And I did not "downgrade the quality" of anything. I resized the file (an exact copy of this image in its original resolution can be found here) per WP:IMAGERES: "If you believe an image is oversized, either re-upload a new version at the same file location, or tag the image file page with a {{Non-free reduce}} template, which will place it in a maintenance category to be reduced by volunteers...". And I did not "edit war to have it deleted". You were the one edit warring over 3 years time to make sure the file you uploaded was at the top of the article. When the second file was uploaded, I removed it, you restored your file when it was replaced by the other editor, I restored your version, decided the other was better, you began your false accusations of not complying with policy, I reverted, self-reverted, self-reverted again, and then split the difference by uploading a third unrelated file with proper sourcing and attribution that clearly shows the subject of the article. This does not mean I deserve a ban. It means you deserve a trout because for someone who's been on Wikipedia this long, you should know the policies better than you're showing you do in your poor attempt to get me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong is a proven liar whose statements are ingenuous. He's claimed above that he wanted a better quality image of an image whose resolution he himself decreased. There's no question of this, and any admin with access can see the edits--given the image was deleted after Ryulong's edit warring I cannot provide diffs, but anyone familiar with this page is also familiar with Ryulong's endless disruption on every front. The user needs a long term general blocking for his inability to deliberate and act civilly and in good faith, not a topic ban, a general blocking. Read his history and all will be obvious. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  Are you actually reading anything I've said to refute your ridiculous claims? Your screen cap was shit quality. It was blurry. It did not clearly depict the characters in any way and I can prove that with the file that was mirrored on the Ultraman Wikia. I asked you if you could possibly procure a better looking screenshot but also reminded you that it had to be a certain set of dimensions because of the non-free content policy. I do not know why you are so fucking incensed over the fact that I changed the dimensions of the screenshot you uploaded in order to have it properly comply with WP:IMAGESIZE. Now get off your fucking high horse because all I ever fucking did was resize your grainy and poorly timed screenshot and dare to think someone else's discovery elsewhere on the Internet would be a better option even though you wiki lawyered five ways from Sunday any way you could have your version on the article and nothing from anyone else. Someone hat off this off topic garbage from Medeis, please, because it's clear he just will not accept that I know more about the non-free content policy than he does.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to interpret Ryulong's comments logically, but he appears to propose lots of new policies to Wikipedia. For example:

• We can be bold to mass-remove content with reliable sources, without discussion.
• If the title of a paper appears to be at odds with one's ideological agenda ("languages" and "dialects" in our case), it can be removed completely.

Will they be accepted by the community? The answer is obvious. --Nanshu (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And I wonder if Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) still endorses Ryulong's mass removal of content with reliable sources. --Nanshu (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• My advice would be bring some of the disputed reliable source to WP:RSN. If they are deemed reliable by others who are uninvolved then I see no reason why the content should stay removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The point here is mass removal. Actually, I posted a list of sources I cited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong and wait Ryulong to pinpoint the reason why each of them must be removed completely. If he would have done this, I would have gone to WP:RSN. --Nanshu (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do. Mass does not equal total. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Then help Ryulong. He has so many things to done to defend mass removal. --Nanshu (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

your sources for hese pages were minimal in content and context (some comprise one or two pages at times) and you seemed to be making much more out of 6 pages of Japanese text per subject than seemed possible. Not to mention that you cherry picked sources to prove that these dialects, as considered by the sources you gleaned and other existing sources, are languages unto themselves. Everything you wrote contradicts other articles on the project, and you still never answered me as to why you removed シマユムタ and ヤンバルクトゥーバ from the articles, completely renamed the Kunigami language into the Northern Okinawa language, and completely ignored the Kikaijima language. And additionally why you have constantly made ad hominem attacks whenever I dare contest something you've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming a typical Ryulong thread. Extremely long but no substance. He keeps replying. It does not matter to him however pointless his comments are. He is just waiting people to get fed up. Unfortunately, this strategy is proven to be very effective. After all, we are volunteers. Life is short and we can use our limited free time better. This is done at the cost of the devastation of the community. It's clearly harmful to Wikipedia's development. I ask for you patience. This strategy shouldn't work any more.

The point is simple from the very beginning. Ryulong mass-removed content with reliable sources, without discussion. He fails to defend his action. And judging from his comments here, it is highly likely that he will do this kind of disruptive editing again. We need effective measures to prevent this from happening. --Nanshu (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because whenever someone raises a thread against me on this board it is always for a trivial reason that outweighs the policy violations perpetrated by the original poster. There is also a growing consensus at WT:LANG that supports my actions due to the fact that there is nothing out there that supports creating separate articles for these 3 dialects, completely renaming a language/dialect, and making up your own personal interpretation of the language families that contradict every other article on Wikipedia on the subject and the mainstream theories.

Nanshu, you keep saying I'm violent, a waste of time, devastating the community, etc. Stop it. I am tired of it. You have been berating me and talking down to me since at least 2011 when I dared to add "Aynu Mosir" to Hokkaido and it has colored every single conversation we have had since. You did not bother to participate in any of the conversations that had been started. You automatically cried "violence" and brought this to ANI. You've clearly not learned anything. You are not superior to me. I am not superior to you. We are equals on this website and perhaps it is your behavior that is the issue. I don't think I've ever seen you participate in any discussion that hasn't been made for the express purpose of getting rid of whatever I might have contributed to the project in the area of these dead and dying languages of the Japanese archipelago, and constantly rehashing arguments after you've disappeared for months and the conversation either came to a decision without you or just died on its own. No one should have to deal with someone as obstinant as you.

And it's not my fault Medeis decided to open up his own old wounds and cry foul over a deleted fair use image he uploaded that he thinks was vandalized when I made it 50% smaller.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for quoting, but I just remembered something after reading this:

• "never answered me as to why you removed シマユムタ and ヤンバルクトゥーバ from the articles, completely renamed the Kunigami language into the Northern Okinawa language, and completely ignored the Kikaijima language".

Nanshu has done this specifically before, where he went through many of the towns and villages of Okinawa Prefecture and removed some of the native names of the settlements[11][12][13], while leaving others alone[14][15]. He then ignored my demands for a reason for his actions[16]. This is obviously a pattern. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. Unless you explain how this justifies mass removal of content with reliable sources, you are dodging the most important question.
• Unsourced. Ryulong's unsourced claims are unverifiable.
• Covered by the "Folk terminology" sections in a much better way (with at least 8 reliable sources, accent information whenever available, etc).

--Nanshu (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your bold actions to split up two articles onto all of these content forks that your claiming have reliable sources, despite the fact there is no established consensus on Wikipedia or in the linguistic community for the terminology and divisions you employed. I hoped that by restoring things to as they were it would foster a civil discussion on the merits of your system, but your behavior makes that difficult.

What unsourced claims? Because I have sources. You just constantly reject them because you think I'm inferior to you.

You did nothing of the sort in the edits that Sturmgewehr88 addresses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks, revisited

Because he is not getting the desired results here or at the linguistics project, Nanshu is making baseless claims in an unprecedented attempt to discredit my opinion on the topic. He has accused me of being some sort of political activist violation WP:Advocacy because I think one language classification is better than the one he produced on all of the articles he's angry at me for reverting him on. This has got to stop. Nanshu cannot edit this project collaboratively if this is how he reacts to every single disagreement he has, as I have shown throughout the larger thread above in other diffs and conversations (more like berating lectures) I have had with him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is doing an all-or-nothing game. He thinks he has a right to keep Wikipedia in the state of nothing unless he agrees to expand. This is not the way Wikipedia works. Admitting that mass removal of content with reliable sources (instead of merger, for example) was a mistake is the first step to depart from nothing. The most important question is left unanswered even though this thread is getting painfully long. It's clear who cannot collaborate with others. --Nanshu (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This thread is going nowhere. Nanshu's argument for creating these content fork/fringe theory articles is falling apart on WT:LANG, the redirection of which articles is the whole basis of his complaint here. The fact that this whole time he's done nothing but belittle Ryulong with holier-than-thou rants that're stretching into WP:TLDR territory, coupled by the fact that not everyone agrees that his newly invented languages are even notable, just shows that this motion to block/ban Ryulong should be closed. I again stress Nanshu's over-dramaticism and total failure to coöperate constructively. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I also can't believe he would refactor this section break. This thread has gone no where from the beginning. Was my stated rationale for the redirecting and u splitting wrong? Perhaps. But Nanshu cannot be worked with when he is challenged on his edits like this. He was bold, I reverted, and instead of civilly discussing its devolved to his usual attacks on me rather than my actions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And now there's a straw poll because he's not getting his way and he's framing this as "Nanshu vs. Ryulong" instead of actual discussions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This has gone on for 4 days now. It's clear that if administrator action hasn't been taken already, it won't be; this thread is now pointless. Would an admin please close this? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You really love to stir shit up don't you Ryulong, how many ANIs a month you get? Loganmac (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Usually a half of one. Now don't pile on because you hate the player and not the game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesus I went back to edit my formating fuck up and you had already fixed it thanks, how many pages you watch, and how much time you spend on Wikipedia Loganmac (talk) 11:38, 10 October 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.

Yik Yak and Qjndakdnakdnad

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.

---

• Qjndakdnakdnad (talk · contribs)

This user is singularly-focused (the entirety of their edit summary bears this out on inserting a mention of an app similar to Yik Yak called "Masquerade" into the article. At first it was in the body, then it was in the "See also" [17] section (it doesn't actuallty have its own article, thus running contrary to WP:SEEALSO. User is now now engaging in a scorched-earth "if mine can't be their then yours can't either" [18], in removing link to Erodr that actually is notable and simioar to Yik Yak. Discussion at the talk page, Talk:Yik Yak, seemed promising at first, but the user subsequently tried to remove that section of the talk page, then went back to the old behavior. We're clearly in I Didn't Hear That territory. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but simply to promote a product. If they cannot make edits for any other helpful purpose, perhaps a block is in order.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Amateur hour update. Mr. Qjndakdnakdnad has now created a sock, @Encyclopedicbrown:. Account created at 19:32, makes its first edit at 19:33, which just so happens to be the same link addition that Qjndakdnakdnad has been pushing...and that editor just posted something to my page at 19:27. Is a formal SPI filing needed, or can we just deal with the obvious shenanigans now? Tarc (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And both of them have attempted to blank this ANI section. Encyclopedicbrown here and Qjndakdnakdnad here. Meters (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have indef'd Encyclopedicbrown and blocked Qjndakdnakdnad for 36 hours as sockpuppet and master after they both blanked this section. GB fan 02:17, 10 October 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:BULLDOZERING" of article / Possible Editor Stability Issue Issue with Editor Actions Effecting Stability of Page

Legacypac has agreed to use the WP:RM procedure for all controversial or potentially controversial moves. I suggest that user:DocumentError does the same for his/her own protection against misunderstandings. I also suggest that both editors re-read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines particularly the first seven bullet points in the section Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration. Also I would suggest that both editors read WP:LAME to get an a prospective of how disinterested editors will view a heated dispute like this one. -- PBS (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The article 2014 military intervention against ISIS is already a contentious article, however, Legacypac, who has recently come off a 1-year topic ban on WP:BLP, has taken an extremely disruptive sense of ownership over it, making substantial, unilateral changes - including repeatedly moving the entire page (!) - while discussions are ongoing or after consensus has been achieved. The article requires careful editing, and a slow and methodical approach. But he keeps driving a bulldozer through it at 80kph and when people yell at him to slow down, rips his shirt off and starts waving around a live hand grenade. (I'm sorry for that colorful metaphor; however, that's the most appropriate way to describe what has recently occurred succinctly.) A very small sample (of many examples of page moves and snow closes he's imposed that had to be undone) -

- On 6OCT, with no warning, he moved the entire page to "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" [19] even though a move discussion on that very topic had just opened two hours before and was tracking a majority of "oppose" votes to said move.

- On 2OCT he unilaterally moved the page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq (see: [20]) even though a discussion about that move (that, in fact, he initiated) was ongoing and no one had registered a !vote in support of such a move. (see: [[21]]). He left the parting shot "Iran leads no one." before taking this action. Another editor had to undo it.

- On 5OCT, the same day a consensus discussion had closed regarding the order of nations in the Infobox, he - again unilaterally - changed the order of said nations to break consensus. His excuse, as always, was that it was "messed up" and he had to take immediate action, though he has been told it is not needed for him to assume "emergency powers" to make what he feels are "urgent" edits. The ordering/reordering of nations is a time consuming process and this behavior is supremely disruptive for those of us already putting hours into this article to see it trashed sans discussion in one fell swoop.

- On 4OCT he unilaterally and without discussion blanked the page Siege of Kobane, Syria with the note "kill messed-up page." Kkj11210 had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content. [22]

- He, again unilaterally, has started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL" throughout 2014 military intervention against ISIS. But he's done it in such a sloppy way that we now have both terms being used interchangeably throughout.

- He repeatedly tells people who question these edits to "AGF" and repeatedly files frivolous ANIs asking for people to be topic banned. I use the term "frivolous" objectively - I was among those he filed an ANI against and it tracked 10 editor comments; only he and one other editor !voting in support of said ban.

Request: There is a fine "partisan" balance in these articles and the "side" on which LP has aligned himself (who, with the exception of LP, are cooperative and interested in consensus building) will most certainly oppose any action against him as this would disrupt said balance. So, I'm not asking for any "sanctions." What we would appreciate much more than that is an uninvolved admin simply doing a drive-by on the article's talk page for the next couple days. I know it's a lot to ask but I think it's more productive than bans or blocks. DocumentError (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The continual attacks and the editors own hostility and obvious bias speak for themselves. I already responded to most of these accusations in an ANi against DocumentError and on the talk page points 33-39. None of them have any substance. For example, the consensus dealt very clearly with the American-led coalition, but now DocumentError expands it to mean all parties - seems like a straight up intentional misrepresentation about me. I doubt I'll want to add much else here. Legacypac (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Telling you to "chill out" is not "hostility" but I apologize if you took it that way. We've tried everything from begging to bargaining with you in an effort to get you to discuss before editing, particularly the major edits that you specialize in (such as renaming every instance of ISIS to ISIL [which has to be painstakingly, manually, undone] or repeatedly moving entire pages). If I resort to California surfer talk, please construe it as total and complete desperation, not hostility. DocumentError (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we just have a conversation a few days ago in which you repeatedly cited the essay WP:CALMDOWN? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaping straight to the conclusion that Legacypac is "unstable" seems like a stretch. It looks like Legacypac has taken WP:BOLD to heart maybe more than is wise. These are contentious topics where nearly every article includes at least one heated discussion over how to present content. Legacypac should probably slow down and attempt to reach a written consensus before taking major actions like page moves and massive content reorgs. I don't see evidence of edit warrior behavior, but it's pretty easy to end up violating WP:1RR when you are making large edits without discussion, and it certainly can be disruptive. I will note that I agree with Legacypac's interpretation of the consensus on the alphabetical infobox ordering; it certainly wasn't my intent in voting yes for Assyrian militias to be listed above major players in the intervention, and I'm not sure how the consensus there could have been construed as such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I finally realize DocError must have thought everyone agreed with his strictly alphabetical position, while I think no one else agreed to that. As per the RfC question i understood we talking about groups within the American group. I guess he was the one that put the bell in such a strange order, while I assumed he had just reordered just the American led group as the rest of the editors agreed. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, not an opportunity to be insulted and maligned by a hound. I was starting to think that DocumentError was becoming quite reasonable dealing with the stupid Au vs Uk fight others engaged in but this AM I see i was mistaken. Note that the rest of his accusations here are baseless, just like the alphabetical issue. Spending so much time on this page I learned you can say pretty much anything without penalty including swearing but I will abstain. Dont want anyone else to think me unstable. As for my rework of the article the great thing about wikipedia is that anything can easily be changed so if any other editor has constructive criticism or edits bring it on. I did not revert anyone and i never even looked at who wrote what, just took a wholistic view of the article and related articles to best serve the reader. While I dont own the article I was feeling rrally good about all my hard work until someone said a bunch of stuff a lot harsher than 'calm down'. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about: "bring it on" is just not a constructive approach when dealing with a very delicate, emotional article. The edits you are making are so large that it is very difficult to undo them, though we have been patiently doing that anyway. Your refusal to discuss anything, instead simply yelling "Bring it on!" just isn't working anymore. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a serious misread of what Legacypac said: "if any other editor has constructive criticism or edits bring it on". Legacypac can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like he's merely noting that it's a collaborative environment and welcoming other editors to contribute or critique -- not daring them to challenge him or threatening to edit-war or anything like that. (That being said, his comments downthread are entirely less nuanced.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. My interpretation may have been colored by his comments downthread and/or elsewhere. I apologize if I misread his intention with "bring it on." DocumentError (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Kudzu1. That's not how I interpreted it when I closed it so we're both on the same page. However, I also don't think anyone thought we should relabel the sections to lump all non-U.S. actors into a single miscellaneous catchall category. That was never discussed and is a significant break from status quo. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me make something very clear. DocumentError keeps making up stories about me. Top of the section he accuses me of moving the page multiple times. Absolute bullshit. I moved it one time last night shortly after an uninvolved editor moved the page to something that would never get consensus. I only moved it back to the very closest available name.

• Long standing name: 2014 military intervention against ISIS
• new undiscussed name by another editor: Military intervention against the Islamic State
• the name I choose because I could not revert: 2014 military intervention against ISIL.

I would not have even made the move except to to get back to 32/33 characters of the long standing name so any future renames could be properly discussed. But why do I need to defend my actions? Can I simple pretend he does not exist? He seems to be here to wage war with various editors not build anything. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But why do I need to defend my actions? You don't. No one has asked for your banning or blocking. I have asked for a daily admin drive-by for the next few days due to a pattern of very aberrant and unusual behavior you're exhibiting. If you don't plan on doing anything highly unconventional in that time you don't need to "defend" yourself. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Can you wait for the RfC to finish before moving the article (or not)? – Epicgenius (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Forget the RfC, which should not've been opened. There is a long-standing RM discussion that has been ongoing on the talk page. Until that is closed, there should be no more discussion of the title outside of that discussion. Please consolidate. RGloucester — ☎ 01:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the two discussions should be consolidated. We have groups of editors !voting in two different sections on the same thing. DocumentError (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To add fuel to the fire, Legacypac, moments ago, just unilaterally closed the discussion [23], declaring an older, seemingly abandoned, RfC on this topic to have "reached consensus" (after an IP editor injected a "support" !vote to seal it) and thereby essentially voiding the !votes of Epicgenius, Empire of War and others who commented on the most current RfC instead of the old one. He then declared our requests for him to stop and communicate prior to unilaterally barreling through the article to be "personal attacks" and unilaterally closed that discussion, as well. [24]. Legacypac, once again, you do not own this article - please just stop and communicate with the other editors before making page moves, major changes, and closing discussions. DocumentError (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

He was right to close the "RfC", as it wasn't really an RfC. The correct thing to do, DocumentError, is to direct those people to the requested move section, so that they can comment there. That way we'll have a nice consolidated discussion. I've added a notice to the bottom of the talk page as such. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, RGloucester. The problem is, the other move section was also closed almost immediately after he shut-down the "RfC." So directing people to a closed discussion is like directing voters to a polling place the day after election day. Shouldn't we have given Epicgenius, Empire of War, etc. a day or two to log-in and receive the alert that they need to move their !votes to the "consolidated" RfC before it was closed? (In fact, had they voted, the RfC wouldn't have been closeable as it would no longer have had consensus.)

I'm extremely concerned with how many editors are being shoved out of the decisionmaking process about this page due to a pattern of rapid and un-discussed RfC closings and structural changes. The problem becomes doubly concerning due to the fact all the editors being sidelined have the same editorial perspective. This will only result in continued ill-will, drama, and turf wars which I know neither you nor I want. (By way of comparison, I have a discussion point [non-RfC] right now that has been open for 24 hours and I'm the only person who has !voted. On the precedent that's being set, in another 24 hours I suppose I could declare consensus, close it, and start editing the page, but there's no way I would ever think about doing that and I can predict the hysteria that would result if I did. I think those of us on the "non-U.S." side in the page are hoping a similar level of respect can be extended to our thoughts and opinions.) DocumentError (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Separate Issue

Requested Admin Action: If DocumentError can't prove each of these 5 BS accusations here and now I want him banned. On second thought I want the Admins to take whatever action they think is appropriate - but I reserve the right to ignore the User completely and expect full immunity from any action he brings against me in the future. If he can prove these 5 points to the satisfaction of 3 different Admins Iand no he can't shop unlimited Admins until he gets 3) I'll take a 90 ban myself.
1. He falsely accuses me of including repeatedly moving the entire page (!) Show us the diffs to prove it. Yes yesterday I moved the article back (1 letter off) from a new title that DocumentError stated he does not like on talk. 2. He accuses me of going against consensus on the Belligerents order, but we have now established that he rearranged the Belligerents in a way that went against the consensus. Show us the diff for my revision and the consensus I breached. I'll submit what I did to any Admin to review. 3. He said (here and on talk) that "But he keeps driving a bulldozer through it at 80kph and when people yell at him to slow down, rips his shirt off and starts waving around a live hand grenade." That sounds like loony behavior - and now I see he is backpedaling with a false apology. Show us diffs that are anything like what he describes. 4. He claims I yelled "bring it on!". (I really don't remember saying anything like that) Please show us the diff where I told him anything like that. 5. He says there are many examples of snow closes and page moves that had to be undone. Other then two snow closes a long time ago that were undone on a technicality (I had never tried a snow close before, still learning, and the editor that undid agreed it was snow) can he provide even 1 diff of the "many" snow closes that had to be undone. We either have community standards here we follow or its a free for all slander and disruption fest. I'm curious to see which it is. I'll check back on this in a few days. (edited for clarity)Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely pushing your luck here - asking for a WP:BAN? Seriously, stop digging your own hole and get along the panda ₯’ 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean your response to Epicgenius question above Can you wait for the RfC to finish before moving the article (or not)? is no? Again, this is what we're discussing. You are politely asked to stop unconstructive editing and instead of slowing down to discuss our concerns you become extremely excited and agitated. I think the only diff you've asked for that I haven't already provided is "Bring it on" - here is is: [25]. The rest are above, just slow down, and read them if needed. No one is asking for your banning or blocking; please read with an open mind what the community is saying about your most recent disruptive edits here and kindly consider adjusting your behavior. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius I have no interest in moving the article. If someone with more power than me can move the article back to the long standing title I will not complain one bit. Look this is not fun. That is my point. I ask other editors to think how they would feel if they were treated the way I am being treated and had these things said about them. Are each of you stable? Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh good grief. If there is any administrative action that can or should even be contemplated in this entire clusterfuck of a dispute, it's an WP:IBAN. There is no case for a topic ban, there is no case for an actual ban, and the only case for even a temporary block in either direction (which I still think would be draconian) is this persistent, relentless WP:BATTLE and WP:HOUND activity that may have originated with nominator, but is now clearly being mirrored by Legacypac. Can we be done with this -- or at least done with blowing this up all over admin noticeboards and article Talk pages? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to simply ignore all communication or actions by the nominator. Life's too short to let such people ruin your day. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 00:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Possible Editor Stability Issue". Uhm...if there is nothing more to do here....boomerang the OP for a blatant violation of NPA. Suggest a 3 day block. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I don't mean "editor stability" as in "a crazy editor" I mean "stability" as in an editor's aberrant actions destabilizing the article; the aforementioned mid-discussion page moves, etc. Poor word choice on my part, thanks for bringing it to my attention, Mark Miller. DocumentError (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what we're discussing. The fact you've been ignoring all communication from every editor; not just myself but all of us. The page has become incredibly unstable because of the unilateral, major edits you are making including moving the title, and renaming ISIS to ISIL throughout, while acting in a highly unusual way toward editors who attempt to engage or invite you into discussion. DocumentError (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError is correct, Legacypac did not have consensus to change the title of the page.--Empire of War (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a content issue. Either strike out the accusation or be in violation of NPA. Seriously. This isn't brain surgery.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Than you (edit after the fact) to DocumentError for the change!.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I also want to thank DocumentError for removing this personal attack on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIL: [26] I'm not sure the edit summary does it justice, but the de-escalation is nonetheless appreciated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, you need to stop right now. You're following LP's M.O. of wolf-yelling about non-existent personal attacks when people communicate directly and bluntly about disruptive behavior. I edited my remark because it wasn't concise, not because it was a PA. If you have any further issues, bring them up on my Talk page. Don't derail this thread which is already too long. DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Was your intention not to de-escalate when you removed the part of your comment where you issued Legacypac an ultimatum and warned he would be "riding into the sunset" if he didn't self-revert? I took it as an attempt to de-escalate, but your reaction is unexpected. Sorry if it was misconstrued. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I've responded on your Talk page. DocumentError (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending Legacypac's move to the new title, which obviously should not have been done while the move request was underway, but in the interest of context, it should be noted that he was moving the page from a different title to which the page was moved, without discussion, while the debate was in progress. IIRC, he should have been able to move the page back, as I don't think 2014 military intervention against ISIS was salted by the single undiscussed move, but there may be technical issues there that I am unaware of. Either way, he should have requested administrative assistance if he was unable to fix the title himself, rather than making a contentious move. But that's a mistake -- not evidence of "instability", IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The page is very unstable - he didn't just make the undiscussed move, he then went through and made 23 manual changes of "ISIS" to "ISIL." Again, all while a consensus discussion was going on trending in opposition to such a change and over the strenuous objections of half-a-dozen other editors. And it's not just this time or this one article. He did the same thing with Iranian-led intervention in Iraq and other places. Again, no on is asking for a ban or block. We are asking for an admin to join the discussion as he is non-communicative with his peer editors. DocumentError (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think changing one letter in an acronym that is already inconsistent in its usage throughout Wikipedia is "very unstable". I also don't see evidence of him being "non-communicative"; on the contrary, he has been posting frequently on the Talk page and has provided rationales for his editing. Should he have waited for the results of the discussion to shake out -- yes. And another editor would be within his or her right to revert the undiscussed ISIL/ISIS changes. But I think this has been blown out of proportion. It seems like this is being handled adequately by WP:BRD without the need for yet another AN/I report and this ridiculous back-and-forth sniping between the two of you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, just to note: there was a discussion on this matter at the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant talk page, which favoured using "ISIL" for consistency. It would be absurd to have a separate usages at each of these articles. Perhaps he merely thought he was enacting consistency? If so, bravo. This mess is quite a mess, and it's about time it got mopped up. Either way, no one should be moving this page whilst a move discussion is ongoing on the talk page. It'd be nice if some administrators came in and began to moderate the large amounts of vitriol and nonsense edit warring on both sides. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, RGloucester. DocumentError (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, slap my ass and call me Betsy, because it looks like all three of us agree on this. How about that for a sensible path forward? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Betsy"! *Smack!* ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's great we all agree. Not to be a buzzkill, but just to clarify what we are agreeing on, we agree that we would like to have an admin or two hang out on the page for awhile (as per my OP), is that correct? (Of course, that's easier said then done, since admins seem to an endangered species of late.) DocumentError (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see how it goes without an admin if we all make a better effort to communicate, AGF, and not participate in this WP:BATTLE stuff on AN/I and other noticeboards. That goes for all of us who are involved here, without prejudice. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I think we don't all agree then. But that's okay. DocumentError (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I am against having an admin around to keep things on track if necessary; I am generally a proponent of active observation, at least, of contentious pages and issues by uninvolved admins. But I don't like the way that this AN/I report is presented, suggesting that the admin should specifically target one editor for scrutiny, and I don't think we are helpless to resolve our own disputes and issues without the involvement of an admin. Hopefully that at least brings us close to being on the same page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I never asked for an admin to come by and scrutinize an editor. That's not what "drive-by" means. I presented the most current reason we needed an admin, and then requested one. Had I simply said "hey admin, come sit on this page!" they first question would have been "why should I?" If you want to get in the last word on this, go ahead, I think the case for observation has been made by RG, EG, EoW, and myself so I have no more input. The only thing I'll ask is you try not to offer an interpretation of what I said that gives it a sinister subtext. DocumentError (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Re page move. I did try to revert the uninvolved editors page move but could not. The last page move I tried to fix was blocked by the old page name occupying the space (and still is). I assure you there was no intent to override concensus on the trivial matter of ISIS vs ISIL in the page name. As for editors who make broad based personal attacks then edit them out after there have been responses to improve their image... that stinks of something of trying to make the other edit look like he is over reacting. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move sequence

It is the huge number of moves, page request to move, discussions about moves that causing a lot of problems and instability, this in turn if fuelling feelings of bad faith. This mess is a good example of this.

The page move sequence is a bit complicated but AFAICT this is what happened. There was an outstanding page move request on the article's talk page:

• 2014 military intervention against ISIS → 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

opened by user:Kudzu1 at 04:27, 25 September 2014.

• User:PleaseConsider unilaterally moved the page from 2014 military intervention against ISIS to Military intervention against Islamic State at 01:10, 6 October 2014 with the comment "ISIS officially announced themselves as the Islamic State; its unconfirmed whether the operation is just a year long conflict. Mos..."
• user:Legacypac unilaterally moved the page from Military intervention against Islamic State to 2014 military intervention against ISIL at 05:41, 6 October 2014 with the comment "almost exactly like stable title, but matches WP name for org. Last move was completely undiscussed and against results of previous mov..."
• I closed the RM at 20:21, 7 October 2014‎ and moved 2014 military intervention against ISIL to 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant at 20:27, 7 October 2014‎ with the comment "Revert an inapropriate move made in the middle of an RM about the page name"

As I see the move history. User:PleaseConsider should not have moved the page while there was an ongoing RM. user:Legacypac should not have moved the page to yet another title (the correct procedure is outlined at WP:RM#Undiscussed moves) which is move it back to the original title or ask for a technical move at RM if there is a technical reason why a non-admin can not revert the move.

user:Legacypac the move discussion you initiated here was out of order for two reasons. All controversial moves should be discussed using the WP:RM procedure. You must not open another RM when there is one currently open on a talk page (apart from anything else it confuses the bot), and it can potentially confuse editors which means that one or both RMs my reach different conclusions because not all editors participate in both conversations. The correct procedure is to suggest the alternatives within the single RM and see if one of the alternative names gain a wider consensus.

user:DocumentError at the start of this long ANI section you wrote

"- On 6OCT, with no warning, he moved the entire page to "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" [27] even though a move discussion on that very topic had just opened two hours before and was tracking a majority of "oppose" !votes to said move."

It seems to me that you were unaware that there was an open WP:RM higher up the talk page so the move discussion you link to was inappropriate (given the earlier still open RM), and that you were unaware that there had been another page move only four hours before user:Legacypac moved the page. Given this new information do you wish to alter anything you have written about the page move that user:Legacypac made? -- PBS (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for the effort User:PBS. I've learned quite a bit about page move procedure and RfC (or so called "RfC's") in the last few days. There are obvious differences between the well thought out policy and the actual chaotic practice I've observed here, and I'm trying to learn how to use the official tools. I sincerely apologize for my evident policy breaches, and I assure everyone they were only in good faith. Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS. With respect to 2014 military intervention against ISIS, I'll just say that I think the fact the earlier discussion was shuttered immediately after the second discussion was closed - without alert given to the people who had registered an opinion only in the second discussion - was unfortunate. Had Epicgenius, Empire of War, etc., been given more than a few minutes warning to move their !votes before closure was declared by an involved editor, there would not have been a close consensus. I AGF that !vote-rigging was not the reason the fast sequence of closures were made but merely reflect that, in a highly charged atmosphere, great caution and deliberation is always preferable to WP:BOLD closures and edits.

In the separate case of 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq it appears [28] there was only one discussion occurring when the unilateral decision to move the page was made with the declaration "Iran leads no one" and over the strenuous objections of the majority in that discussion. [29]. DocumentError (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping everything in one place for evaluation here are several more fresh PAs. I'd appreciate not being hounded and attacked all over Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac - you relentlessly accuse other editors of targeting you for personal attacks and then post diffs, like the one above, that contain no such attacks. Merely addressing a comment toward you ≠ personal attack. Neither I, nor anyone else, is out to "get" you. DocumentError (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting this sequence, PBS. Since the page is now at the title agreed by consensus, there is no evidence of bad faith in the previous undiscussed moves, and the moving editors have been advised of the problem, my inclination is to just let this drop. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The page is not at the title agreed to by consensus, as the discussion was closed minutes after the second discussion was suddenly and unilaterally declared void - disallowing persons who only opined in the second discussion from moving their votes. That said, I agree with Kudzu1 there is no evidence of bad faith by Legacypac. Our only concern has been a penchant for engaging in major article restructuring, like page moves explicitly against consensus (as he did in the separate case of 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq [30] [31]), as well as a pattern of aberrant behavior such as declaring he's being targeted by other editors when attempts to communicate with him are initiated. While this is disruptive behavior, I have no reason to believe bad faith and feel LP is doing what he genuinely feels is improving WP and, perhaps, the world generally (the latter, though a noble intent, may be the crux of the problem). DocumentError (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@DocumentError you wrtie "The page is not at the title agreed to by consensus", but I moved the page to its current title after assessing the open WP:RM. My decision was made on the guidance given at WP:AT and the consensus for that guidance in the opinions expressed in the RM. What ever Legacypac did or did not do with opening and closing a conversation lower down the page is not directly relevant to the current page name, and from the comments Legacypac has made on user talk:Legacypac, it is unlikely Legacypac will make a similar mistake in the future.

As to your second concern. The links you have provided are to the same page move not two different ones! I think that Legacypac made a mistake and should have initiated an RM before making the move, however I do not believe the move was done in bad faith any more than your revert of move was (presumably you were following the advise at WP:RM#Undiscussed moves). Legacypac has now used the talk page to initiate an RM (see Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Requested move). When there is bad faith between two editors it is often a good idea for then to try to minimise as far as is reasonable direct exchange on talk pages for a time to allow passions to subside. So I suggest that if Legacypac will agree to assume for the next year that all article page moves Legacypac wishes to make are potentially controversial, and agrees to use the WP:RM process for all article page moves, that this ANI is closed with not further action taken. -- PBS (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

For my part I've learned correct procedure on moves and intend to follow it forever.

To the end DocumentError erroneously sticks to the narrative that I did awful things "including repeatedly moving the entire page (!)" found in the first line of his report. - something I immediately asked him to prove and he can't because it is a lie, like most of the other crap he says about me. In good faith I publicly self-imposed an interaction ban but DocumentError continues to follow me around saying nasty things about me with his new found freedom of knowing I will not respond.

Since DocumentError feels it necessary explain his view of my world view, and since at WP you can apparently say any outrageous thing you want with no consequences (the recent ANi on HiLo48 proves that), I am going to very temporarily break my self imposed ignoring of DocumentError and share my observations for the benefit of others who he may interact with.

If you pull back and take a wide view of the facts, things become clear. He tenaciously edits from an anti-America/anti-West/pro Iran bias-often carefully concealed but occasionally plainly laid out. He has taken many actions to put whatever Iran is doing against ISIL into every article about what the American-led group is doing (merge, delete, rename, RfC's). It extends to even silly things like pushing the USA to the bottom of a conflict box below =/-21 other parties, including ones lacking real armies, then throwing a hissy fit when it gets changed and crying that I broke consensus, pointing to a vote where every other editor voted differently than his idea. If I remember correctly, his outrage over that infobox is why he started this complaint. When consensus goes against his very bias views he starts process after process to discredit other editors and force his way. Although he will almost never listen to anyone else's opinion, I sure wish he would find another great wrong to right elsewhere.

The freedom to collaboratively collect and share information on the internet is severely restricted in Iran and anyone who exhibited a pro-USA bias equal to the pro-Iran bias exhibited by DocumentError would need to ponder their desire to keep their freedom or even their head. Here are WP we are tolerant and patient and allow anyone to edit (including ISIL fighters as one editor pointed out recently). Please don't let the freedoms of Wikipedia be trampled in the battleground actions of people who prefer regimes that, in real life, prevent people from enjoying these freedoms. Thank-you for reading my opinion. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

LP - this kind of political monologue is not appropriate for WP. Your above commentary makes me deeply concerned you still don't understand we don't edit according to politics, but according to RS. Also, I will once again ask you to please refrain from publicly declaring myself and other editors are out to get you. No one is out to "get" you. DocumentError (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS - sorry, I think I copied the wrong link. Here [[32]] is where LP moved "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" to "Iranian intervention in Iraq" which occurred after the community expressed opposition to such a move. In it, he rationalized his decision to override consensus with the explanation that "Iran leads no one." That said, it's water under the bridge. I think your proposal sounds like a great way to wrap this up. As per my OP, I was not seeking any type of block or ban against LP, only administrative counsel be offered to LP and you have delivered. The only other thing I would ask is that LP's above statement in which he describes me as "crying" "anti-America" "hissy fit" throwing editor who needs to be stopped to prevent WP editors from being beheaded [33], be juxtaposed against GraniteSand's statement for which he received a preventative ban and consideration be given to possibly lessening it slightly. I'm not going to press that, though, it's a matter for your discretion and if you decline the request I won't bring it up again here or anywhere. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

page move sequence Iran article

My comments do not need to be (incorrectly) summarized and linking too immediately below my comments. I never said anything about about any editors being beheaded!! I feel very chastised for changing one letter in a page name when trying to revert an undiscussed title. Since the sequence of page moves on the Iranian intervention has been brought up countless times as something I have done wrong, here are the facts.

30 September 2014‎ DocumentError (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,059 bytes) (+4,059)‎ . . (←Created page with ...
17:57, 2 October 2014‎ Legacypac (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,473 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Legacypac moved page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq to 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq: see talk pg - Iran has intervened in Iraq, and leads, nor is likely to lead any state actors)
20:15, 2 October 2014‎ DocumentError (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,588 bytes) (0)‎ . . (DocumentError moved page 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq to 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq: a move is currently being discussed on Talk with 1 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral comment - give discussion a chance before moving, please)
15:18, 4 October 2014‎ Pahlevun (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,909 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Pahlevun moved page 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq to 2014 Iranian-led intervention against ISIS)
18:58, 4 October 2014‎ DocumentError (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (23,497 bytes) (0)‎ . . (DocumentError moved page 2014 Iranian-led intervention against ISIS to 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq over redirect: GF reverting of move by Pahlevun - note there is an active discussion regarding this move)

How can the editor who uses my page move to suggest I am "unstable" and other nasty things have the audacity to say these things when that editor moved the exact same page to a 3rd unique title (adding 2014 to the old title) also before the discussion closed?

Also I do not suffer from paranoia (everyone out to get me) or any other mental condition. These personal attacks are out of hand. I'll wait for the apology. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me anymore as I've already indicated I'm content with PBS' proposed solution. But, since you chose to bring it up, I think you omitted a few things in the sequence. Here's a corrected version:

- 30 September - DocumentError created page "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq"

- 00:46, 2 October - Legacypac declared DocumentError shows "bias toward Syria and Hezbollah" [34] for supporting the proposal "Should Hezbollah be included as a belligerent, including flag icon in the infobox?" (a proposal which has, since, approached consensus of the community)

- 01:09, 2 October - Legacypac proposed moving "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" to "Iranian intervention in Iraq" [35]

- 02:06, 2 October - a discussion on the Talk page on Legacypac's proposal had registered 3 !votes in respect of the move: 1 in support of move (Legacypac), 1 opposed to move (DocumentError), 1 calling for a decision to be deferred until later PointsofNoReturn [36]

- 17:57, 2 October - with no further opinions expressed since 02:06, Legacypac went ahead and moved the page anyway, against the trending consensus [37], declaring "Iran leads no one" [38]

- 20:15, 2 October - DocumentError reverted 17:57 move by Legacypac to original "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" [39]

- 15:18, 4 October - Pahlevun moved page to yet another new title "Iranian-led intervention against ISIS" [40]

- 18:58, 4 October - DocumentError reverted 15:18 move by Pahlevun [41] and left a polite note on his Talk page alerting him that there was an active RM discussion

Thanks for your passionate interest in this topic, Legacypac! DocumentError (talk)

The "corrected version" includes this misstatement "- 20:15, 2 October -DocumentError reverted 17:57 move by Legacypac to original "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq"" As I pointed out clearly above, his own page move was not a revert, he also picked a 3rd title in the middle of a move discussion. The sequence I posted is cut and paste from the logs, his version is just more error. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no misstatement. There was no "3rd title." The page was originally named "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq." You changed it to "Iranian intervention in Iraq" over everyone's repeated objections and in the middle of a move discussion. I changed it back to "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq." DocumentError (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh - what to say in the face of obvious error? Legacypac (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User:Kash201313

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:Kash201313 has been repeatedly vandalising Muhajir Sooba article. Previously he was warned not to vandalise pages. --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Saqib. I don't think what Kash is doing is vandalism. He/she has not been using edit summaries to explain his/her edits, but neither have you. In the absence of a clear explanation, it is imperative that you assume good intentions of the user. The first step is to politely ask the user on his/her talk page about any issues you come across.

Admins, I see no cause for action here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:50, 10 October 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 to add original research...

Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kkm has a long history of disruptive and against-consensus editing which culminated, yesterday, in them adding raw financial "data" (Google search results) to a series of corporate articles with edit summaries claiming the sources added were "annual reports". They weren't, of course, annual reports but were search results from Google Finance which Kkm has interpreted themselves to provide year-on-year "financial results". Despite the obvious sourcing problems, Kkm has since edit-warred to keep his original research in various articles, two in particular, avoiding Accenture where he has a history of disruption. The edits to Cognizant ([42]) and Infosys ([43]) claiming the addition of "annual reports" speak for themselves.

I should point out at that this string of 8/9 October edits comes after Kkm edit-warred in February/March/April at Accenture and got reverted multiple times for trying to add the same thing again and again and again (some of those reverts included Kkm edits and other disruption). For all the edit-warring then, Kkm's only contribution to the Accenture talk page was this.

Kkm is obviously here only to add his "expert" financial analysis to articles, rather than relying on the actual expertise of established, reliable financial analysts. He has proven he is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. I'm tagging both NeilN and Begoon who have been part of the latest discussion and Silver seren who was part of the last one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Kkm is a very keen editor, but not one who seems able to grasp policies and collaborative editing. I first encountered him at the Illustration Lab, where he was making dozens of requests for vector conversions of company logos. He was pointed to the procedures, which ask users to take some steps to see if the graphics were already available online. Despite many requests for him to help us by looking first, especially given the massive number of requests he was making, his answer was always basically "I don't want to do that". Later he made an attempt to get graphists to add incorrect licences, so that he could use the graphics on other wikis: see this discussion. Also this extraordinary response: Neither there is a language barriers nor I'm snubbing your comments the fact of the matter is I'm reluctant to help you. Yes, that's 3 years ago, but a stroll through Kkm's talkpage archives and editing history doesn't show that this disappointing attitude towards collaboration has improved at all.

I think there are certainly language and competence issues - the many edits he makes to financial data have no, or garbled edit summaries like "fixation done". As Stalwart says, he often blindly edit wars with no discussion, and uses misleading reference titles like "Annual Report", when in fact he is interpreting Google data himself. Considering the number of this type of edit he makes, I do find it concerning - there does seem to be an element of OR or SYNTH. The unwillingness to discuss compounds this.

I think he means well, but he has a combative and uncollaborative approach, and a certain sense of "entitlement" which grates. What to do? I'm not sure, but since I was pinged I'm offering an opinion. He is certainly disruptive when edit warring and refusing to discuss. I think, at a minimum, there needs to be some acknowledgement of this from the user, and a commitment to edit within community norms. Begoon ^talk 11:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that this editor likely means well. They are likely here to improve the project. However, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR damage articles, as opposed to improve. Their tremendous unwillingness to change when politely advised to change is concerning. Their bull-in-a-china-shop "no" when confronted with the requirement to change is disturbing. Their continual insertion of WP:OR after being advised many times is disrupting. I would not be opposed to an indef block - with indef meaning "until the community is convinced that the behavior will not recur". Such convincing would require showing a true understanding of OR and SYNTH, possible topic bans, and quite possibly a mentor the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys if you don't accept the financial statements data put from Google Finance or Yahoo Finance will you accept from original company website. I will put company's financial data from the official website of the company or I might take from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website. We must ensure that whatever the financial data we put it must be accurate. We typically get annual figure once the company publishes its fourth quarter results. Let me know what sources should we take when putting financial statements. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't understood this discussion. It's about your relationships with other editors, willingness to engage in discussion, ability to contribute collaboratively and general competence to understand our editing principles here. Those are the things you need to address. Begoon ^talk 14:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys if my behavior vexes all of you then I apologize from bottom of my heart. If possible please forgive me for my rude behavior with you in the past. And of-course pls answer my above questioned. I'll certainly follow the Wiki guidelines as well as maintain a cordial relationship with my fellow editors.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 18:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rude behaviour in the past? You were calling people "morons" and promising to continue edit-warring only yesterday. You're still edit-warring elsewhere right now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the better question: do you understand WP:SYNTH?. Formal financials come from the company; period - not from Google, Yahoo, or my belly button. Taking someone else's numbers and passing them off as official is fraudulent, dangerous, and an inappropriate synthesis. This should be obvious the first time you were asked to stop, and should have been obvious before you even began. the panda ₯’ 18:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Remarkably, Kkm is now edit-warring at Tata Motors because he doesn't understand what "Key People" means in the context of an infobox; demanding that they only include "current exec". Rather than discussing it on the talk page (as suggested) he's just blindly reverting on the basis of nothing but his own (incorrect) personal opinion. The responses above confirm he just isn't getting it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Meh - now I look at that again, the edit itself might be ok, I suppose. I'm not sure - the past information and citations seem like they would still be useful in the article. The underlying problem, though, is clear - removal of sourced content with no proper explanation, then edit-war reverting when asked to discuss in the proper place. We cannot collaborate if discussion and co-operation are refused with combative, opinionated, barely intelligible edit summaries. Begoon ^talk 01:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere is there a guideline or policy that says "Key People" must be current execs only. But that's not the big deal - once again, it is the combative attitude and attempt to demand certain things on the basis of an expertise that doesn't exist. Those two disruptive edits came either side of an edit to this thread seeking forgiveness for past disruptive behaviour. Can we please get an admin to step in and put a stop to this disruptive behaviour? St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No where in company article ex-executives are mentioned in "Key people" section. As I have already said if you are keen to put ex-executives name with proper source you can, but in other area certainly not in "key people" section. If you have any doubt pls ask any admin I'm sure they will guide you. By the way pls answer the question that I asked you. Cheers--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're just not getting it are you? You have no consensus for your edits, certainly no consensus for your edit-warring and you don't make any attempt to establish consensus. Your answer to everything is to edit-war first and talk later. It doesn't work that way. I really can't work out if you're simply incompetent or intentionally trolling to get attention? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just a note that I also warned the user about their recent unreferenced additions of religion/ethnicity data to WP:BLP articles. They have replied saying they will rectify the issues. I'll check on that when I can, but I thought a note here was in order, given the general concerns. Begoon ^talk 15:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed and reverted a number of their recent edits due to BLP concerns and left a note in addition to yours on Khm010's talk page. The panda has blocked them for 60 hours disruptive editing, so I suppose this can be closed now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that, and especially the edits you made to clean this up. I didn't want to do that, having commented here. That says something too. I hope the user is able to take proper note of these serious issues. Their history suggests maybe not, but I assume WP:AGF eternally, and hope for the best. Begoon ^talk 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Contents

This is far more technical than I even can begin to know where to look. Someone has messed with the contents template so on every article now the "Contents" section is coming up lower case and part of text. Trackinfo (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you link an example as I've had a look and cant find one myself. Amortias (T)(C) 19:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In the half hour since I posted that, the contents menu has changed twice that I have noticed. They are obviously playing with it somewhere. It appears on every article with multiple sections (meaning virtually everywhere). Trackinfo (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Like Amortias, I'm not seeing it. Please link a specific article where you're seeing this phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain the changes? I went so far as to check the site's CSS, and I still can't find anything. (Plus, that's only been edited once since this section's creation, for a separate thing.) - Purplewowies (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This likely has to do with which skin the OP is using, and is a matter for WP:Village pump (technical), not ANI. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Cow cleaner 5000

Weekly Shōnen Jump‎ and Koavf's user pages were hit again by another CC5K sock, Roy Tripp (talk · contribs). This time, they waited until the account was auto-confirmed. Can we get a CU to check for other sleepers and perhaps if it is possible to do a range block. —Farix (t | c) 10:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheFarix: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cow cleaner 5000. I've just reported him at SPI. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd also suggest indefinitely protecting the Articles for deletion/...(3rd nomination) page from creation. If an editor has any legitimate reason to request it be deleted, they should be going thru an admin as long as CC5K is active. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a 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.

---

I am requesting a block on Ret.Prof for attempting to turn ANI into a WP:SOAPBOX for his personal grievances. See Andrevan admonished. Please note that I don't make such requests lightly. This is the first time in 9 years I have requested a block on anyone. Ignocrates (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I am sorry I lost my cool. I really thought we had all worked things out. Then to see you bring a second ANI against Andrevan truly upset me. I have regained my composure. Sorry again! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies are nice after the fact, but the damage has already been done. You caused a major disruption on another thread by bringing in a large amount of off-topic material, which is now part of the record here at ANI. This incident is a close parallel to the frivolous request for arbitration you filed and later withdrew. You apologized later for that too. Something more is required here. Ignocrates (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Blocking is not a disciplinary action, or a cudgel for those with whom you disagree, and while this user can be a bit of a loose cannon with his keyboard, verbosity is a pretty common sin here on Wikipedia. I have warned him about his Wikiquette before and he has shown signs of reflection and improvement. His slightly hysterical post above (whose spirit I certainly appreciate) is hardly a blockable offense. See our blocking policy and dispute resolution policies. Andrevan@ 19:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

IP needs blocking

124.123.253.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Edit summaries tell the tale. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped after being notified of ANI report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Back as 5.32.67.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Just revert on sight or am I bound by WP:3RR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of an endless loop of reverts and IP-hopping, you could ask for those articles to be semi-protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than clogging up RFPP can an admin look at the contribs above and semi the pages? 5.32. is now resorting to "Arabs are the most racist and evil people and should not be allowed to edit " --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You sure it's the same guy? First IP is from India, second is from the UAE. (Second has also been blocked by the Panda.) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Same edit summaries, same articles, same reverts... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked two weeks by another admin. According to this website the IP address 5.32.67.139 (talk · contribs) has been reported for spamming on 101 sites. I'm filing it at WP:OP to see if it's an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

5.32.67.139 certainly is an open proxy. Any CheckUser will be able to confirm that I am making this edit via the proxy, and to demonstrate to non-CheckUsers I will follow this up by a non-logged-in edit from the proxy, and then I will block it. I shall also block 124.123.253.130. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:PleaseConsider

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.

Resolved

Drmies has blocked PC for 48 hours. Appreciate the quick action. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above user has been making problematic edits at various Syrian Civil War-related pages--and was notified of general sanctions because of it--has been trying to circumvent that by making problematic edits at List of wars involving the United States. He is adding content that isn't even pertinent to the topic of the article (which is "WARS involving the United States", not "battles", "campaigns within wars", or whatever) and which falls under the "broadly construed" portion of the SCW general sanctions. I'm not certain how to approach this, as I'm unsure how enforcement of such general sanctions is supposed to work. Here is the article history, where you can see that PC's been at it basically since s/he received notice of the general sanctions placed. I don't post much to ANI, so if this notice is in the wrong place, let me know where to put it, and I'll move it there. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: Well, if this is your first post you are in the right place. Sorry, I am not an admin so the rest is not up to me. :)--Mishae (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replied to posts here before, but I'm not a regular, and wasn't sure if this was the right spot for this kind of issue. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:23, 11 October 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.

Spam by two likely related editors

Thammondthuzio has been creating a slew of stub articles about lesser-known athletes, based largely on some questionable sources. (See Special:Contributions/Thammondthuzio for a complete list of the articles in question, as well as User talk:Thammondthuzio for a record of the discussions about this problem.) The underlying problem is that almost all of these athletes have profiles on the website thuzio.com (clearly associated with this editor), a service providing "unique experiences" with former and current athletes (play a round of golf with your favorite retired basketball player, have your favorite ex-water skier phone you for a 10-minute conversation, etc.) which leads to the impression that these Wikipedia articles are being created specifically for the purpose of giving these clients more "heft". I have specifically asked about this issue, but have received no response.

As of 10/6/2014, TaylorWiki18 has begun in the same pattern: stub articles about minor athletes, most of whom are Thuzio clients. (Perhaps the fact that not all of the article creations are clients is intended to legitimize their edits, or perhaps the articles about non-clients just reflect clients they haven't yet signed.)

The articles themselves are not exceptionally promotional, but they are terribly sourced for the most part and the pattern is disturbing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I had raised this issue here a few days ago, and the only reply it received was to note that the issue might be better resolved at WP:COIN, so I brought the issue there, and my previous posting here was archived. Given that these editors are still actively spamming the project, and that the WP:COIN has received no replies, and the fact that I believe immediate admin attention is required, I'm reviving the thread here. I have asked Thammondthuzio to stop and discuss, but to no avail. I believe that a temporary block is required to call their attention to the matter and bring about the necessary dialogue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

a few seem clearly notable though inadequately sourced; others, not; one way of proceeding, which can be done in parallel with anything else, is to nominate the dubious ones for deletion individually, as I did here. Deletion is the clearest message. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Coming over here from the COI board, it's not clear what we could do over there. The editors in question have created about 65 of the stub articles mentioned. Many have been speedy deleted. Neither editor has ever replied on their talk page, despite many warning templates. If they won't talk to you, there's not much we can do at WP:COIN. They've had plenty of warnings. I'd suggest a short block to get their attention and slow down the article creation flood. John Nagle (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

24.201.216.214

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

---

Can someone take a look at the recent entries in Special:Contributions/24.201.216.214? I assume this is just a hoaxer, but I honestly don't know how this ought to be dealt with. Mogism (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have rev-deleted their last two edits and blocked for a week. Due to the ultra-violent nature of the last edit, I have also reported to the Foundation at the emergency email address. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Mind if I participate, since I am a recipient of a threat from that IP. I tried to reason with the chap, but with no avail.--Mishae (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So sorry you were subjected to that. The person is editing using a dynamic IP, so please let me know if you see similar activity on a numerically similar IP. Or on any IP for that matter. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Its fine. The block though in my opinion was not. You see, after he started saying that he feeds on autistics I wanted to confront him myself, by asking him for his real name. Although I know that Wikipedia prohibits distribution of personal information, I think that a name is not a part of that rule. He also stated that he have Asperger's and that triggered me to get reasoned with him. Like, maybe he needs help to get started. Its difficult for people with autism to get started in a virtual world, because majority have their own virtual worlds and 2 virtual worlds can't be combined into one in their perspectives. By the way, from what region is his IP is from? He sounds Russian but the IP is difficult to decipher for me since its either in 100's or 200's.--Mishae (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The user was blocked for an extremely violent post on your talk page, which has since been removed and revision deleted. You can use a website to geolocate IPs; there's a link at the bottom of the IP's contribs page. Click on "geolocate" and it takes you through to this site. The user is in Montreal, assuming the IP is not an open proxy. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 11 October 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.

Obvious sock is...

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.

---

IMoney n' iFines 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm guessing this is a sock of somebody, presumably IMoney n' iFines (talk · contribs). Probably merits a quick check for sleepers as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done a checkuser, and found a sleeper. All blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 11 October 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.

Conduct unbecoming an admin

Background of the dispute

Andrevan has recently been invovled in a content dispute on the Gospel of Matthew article. His involvement began when he was asked to intervene on behalf of another editor 18:13 6 Sep 2014 who has a long history of conflicts on the page and who alleged that there were "a group of user accounts working together" to suppress his edits. 05:31 7 Sept 2014, 21:28 7 Sept 2014

Escalating the dispute

Rather than calming down the dispute, Andrevan escalated it by engaging in edit warring, 20:01 14 Sep 2014, 07:46 15 Sep 2014, 09:16 15 Sep 2014, 09:32 15 Sep 2014 and making unhelpful statements on the article talk page. 07:00 15 Sep 2014, 09:34 15 Sep 2014

The following statements by Andrevan on the article talk page are particularly problematic:

"You all arguably have conflicts of interest and are pushing POVs here"

"we are dealing with a POV-centric, possibly pro-Christian and maybe anti-Eastern Orthodox or anti-Semitic consensus"

"If you and your sock/meatpuppets keep this up I will have no choice but to pursue other means. Yes that is a threat - a threat to engage in the mechanisms which enforce policies like those quoted above."

This led to a subsequent ANI filing for talk page threats against other editors which was closed with no action taken. 09:59 15 Sep 2014

DRN filing

After the article was NPOV-tagged, a DRN was opened in an attempt to resolve the content dispute. 02:17 18 Sep 2014. Andrevan's opening statement there was also unhelpful. 02:37 18 Sep 2014

The following remarks made by Andrevan in his opening statement at DRN are especially problematic:

"Many of the other editors have WP:COI as Christians and haven't fully disclosed their involvement with academia, missionary and/or clergy as far as I know."

"At the kernel of this is the idea that a group of orthodox Christian editors are cherry-picking a POV, and excluding others, which conforms with their idea of the academic consensus in violation of WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV."

"It has been suggested by Ret.Prof, who also claims to be a non-Christian, that these theories are associated with Jewish, non-religious and Eastern Orthodox perspectives into Christianity, leading to this incidence of bias. ... Therefore this is an instance of systemic bias masquerading as a consensus, and reliable sources are being excluded at the expense of NPOV."

SPI investigation

While engaged in the ongoing dispute, Andrevan filed a sock-puppet investigation. 21:09 17 Sep 2014 The SPI looked at not only IPs but patterns of interaction between established editors. It was closed with the statement "CheckUser is not for fishing". Unknown to the editors involved, the investigation was subsequently reopened, (SPI reopened) and only recently closed with the statement "I'm not even seeing a reason for behavioural review here. On looking further, I'm going to close this entirely. Risker (talk) 17:53, 4 October 20d14 (UTC)".

PiCo's retirement from editing

The prolonged SPI investigation probably contributed to the retirement of one of the category's most talented and productive editors. 03:08 2 Oct 2014, 03:50 2 Oct 2014

Ignocrates' (almost) retirement from editing

I almost retired myself out of disgust, 00:05 6 Oct 2014 but I'm going to stick around at least long enough to see this through. What happened here was wrong. Ignocrates (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review the expectations of adminship. The issues that concern us here, which are detailed under administrator accountability, are (1) bad faith, (2) breach of basic policies (incivility, edit warring), and (3) poor judgement.

Discussion

The SPI was inconclusive but mainly due to the technical reason that the old IP activity was stale. I don't know why Callanecc reopened the case after the initial closure, or why he didn't then close it when I asked about it on his talk page, but to the larger point, I'm not sure what policy I was violating through all of this, outside of some edit warring early on which I admitted and ceased in your last ANI post. At no point have I used admin tools, I stand by my concerns regarding POV pushing, possible sockpuppetry,and systemic bias. Andrevan@ 21:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please recall your own words in quotations above. You explicitly accused other editors of religiously-motivated bias and meat-puppetry without a shred of evidence to back it up. In fact, an extended SPI investigation showed there were no behavioral issues whatever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If an ordinary editor had made these multiple accusations, they would have been blocked. Yet you walk away without so much as a reminder. Why is that I wonder? Ignocrates (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, this was a bad idea. You failed to prove something a week ago. You're now back. You were told then that RFC/U/ADMIN was a next step. ANI cannot do anything. In fact, I'd bet RFC/U/ADMIN won't do anything either. Admin tools were not used improperly. The POV editing is obvious. The SPI was technical non-linking, not behavioural. You're claiming someone retired because of this with zero proof (extraordinary claims and all that). You're also playing WP:DIVA and suggesting you're only here until something is done. Nothing will be done, nor can it - so you'll martyr yourself wrongly. God, what a bad idea - you created a situation where you can never win, but are guaranteed to lose. the panda ₯’ 21:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The POV editing is not at all obvious. Most of the editors involved have been around a long time (~9 years like me) and are highly experienced. Thanks for your concern that I will "martyr yourself wrongly". I appreciate that but something needs to be said. Let's see what the community says. Ignocrates (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, Ignocrates has proven that Andrevan is casting aspersions quite a lot - accusing editors of a COI, claiming that Christians are biased for being Christian, ect ect. That's inappropriate behavior and needs to stop. Andrevan should focus on the edits.--v/r - TP 21:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, last I checked, having a COI by being an active member of a religion was a potential problem, especially when combined with extensive editing and POV-sculpting in that subject area -- see, the issues around Transcendental Meditation editors probably a few years back? And I recall some case involving Israel-Palestine and Judaism? At any rate, accusing editors of a COI isn't a personal attack -- and it is and was directly related to a content dispute. More importantly, it has nothing to do with admin powers. Andrevan (logged out at work) 22:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time you checked was wrong and it's still wrong this time. You are casting aspersions. If that isn't clear to you, let me say that again: you are poisoning the well and making it impossible to collaborate because of unproven accusations of bias based on the personal characteristics of your opponents. If you cannot get that, let me point you at two Arbcom cases which specifically address this: Here and [[44]]. Religion is not exempted from there. See Meta:Terms of Use, wmf:Non discrimination policy, this Arbcom case. Stop accusing other editors of bias simply based on their religion. No matter religion or any other characteristic, WP:NPA still holds true: comment on the edit and not the editor. P.S. I haven't said anything about admin or 'crat powers. That shows where your head is right now. This is about you the editor. Having a widely held religion is not a COI anymore than living on the planet earth give your a COI. If the edits are biased, call the edits biased. Don't ever, and I repeat, don't ever comment on the editor.--v/r - TP 00:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an edit that's biased without the editor likewise being biased? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You prove editor bias through biased edits. You don't prove biased edits by claiming editor bias. Backwards logic.--v/r - TP 01:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Which edits do you say are biased? – Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

[45] [46] [47] [48] This dispute has apparently been going on for years and I'm sure there is research to do for more diffs - but note I am not making this claim anywhere right now, Ignocrates is quoting my words from a closed WP:DRN.Andrevan@ 02:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I am made the first of those edits, I really must ask you to explain how it could possibly be biased. In fact, I think you should explain that with all the edits. You are accusing editors of being biased - that is a serious accusation, and you should be able to explain how that is the case. StAnselm (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We've been going around and around on this for a while, but as I've explained, you are misrepresenting academic consensus in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:RS/AC and the following statements from the TM ArbCom: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarised sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. ""Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." To explain in article content terms, you like sources which say that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Greek-speaking late-Christians, and not the Hebrew/Aramaic Jewish-Christians. Why or how that affects your personal belief I don't know - but you and this crowd have a strong tendency to revert any changes made to explain these significant minority points of view dating back hundreds of years and supported by notable scholars France, Edwards, Bernard, Casey, and many historical personages.Andrevan@ 03:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem then that I was editing contrary to my religious belief, since, as I stated at DRN, I personally hold to a pre-70 date. StAnselm (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:TParis, I am not discriminating a priori. This is a late stage in a protracted dispute, and there is considerable evidence presented and arguments made on both sides. You seem to think that Ignocrates' out-of-context quotations consist of my entire argument towards bias. There is a small group of editors who insist they WP:OWN the article content and anything aside from a group of cherry-picked sources is WP:FRINGE. They will edit war with anyone who adds sourced balance to the article. I have no dog in the fight, but it seems to be more between denominations, not Christian vs non-religious - or perhaps it is actually, as some have suggested, between academics and lay-people. At any rate, I am calling it how I see it as someone who began as an impartial observer of the article. So perhaps a better description of what I've been doing is critiquing the POV selectivity as seemingly an orthodox perspective (which I assume to pertain to religion based on the subject matter -- I am not simply saying "you identify as religious therefore cannot edit"). Pertaining to ArbCom case law, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Neutrality_and_conflicts_of_interest, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Peremptory_reversion_or_removal_of_sourced_material. I know nothing about the editors personally so the charge of ad hominem is way off here. And again note that I haven't used any admin tools, but certainly might have had reasonable justification before I became WP:INVOLVED. Finally, if you want to see a personal attack, you need look no further than Ignocrates' recent edits.[49] Andrevan@ 02:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I immediately struck my statement, 01:10 2 Oct 2014 conveniently ignored here. I also note, fyi, that Andrevan finally removed the NPOV tags, 23:03 2 Oct 2014 but only after he shoehorned his own preferred version of content into the article, per WP:KETTLE. 00:27 2 Oct 2014 Ignocrates (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV tags is a sign of good faith and willingness to find a compromise. The version I added was significantly weakened and never before submitted -- and was not reverted right away, so I took that as an olive branch.Andrevan@ 02:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

With respect to this "small group of editors", there are several of them I don't even know. I have no edit history with them prior to this dispute. I think there is a major confusion here between WP:STEWARDSHIP - editors recognizing inferior work and fixing it - and WP:OWNERSHIP that seeks to preserve a preferred version. There is no preferred version; that should have been obvious from the DRN. Everyone was happy with the compromise solution reached in DRN, even Ret.Prof was on board. Everyone, that is, but one editor - Andrevan. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the ArbCom case above pertaining to peremptory reversion of sourced material? That's not stewardship. Anyway, none of this is "conduct unbecoming," it's a content dispute, and while perhaps not my finest moments, well within the bounds of reasonable policy-abiding behavior. Could I have kept a cooler head at times? Surely, but did I pull any triggers or jump any guns? Hardly! Andrevan@ 02:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Andrevan's unwillingness, or inability, to acknowledge and take responsibility for his own actions is troubling. Self-reflection is an important quality to have as an admin. I was going to propose a formal reminder as a remedy and move on. Now I'm not as sure about that. Ignocrates (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you are entitled to your opinion or to make whatever proposal you would like. User:TParis, I would just like to point out preemptively and at the risk of provoking his ire, is doubly involved here as I have interacted (not altogether pleasantly) with him in the past, and he also indicates his religious COI on his user page. Andrevan@ 03:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep using that phrase. That is not a COI, and User:TParis has not declared a religious COI on his user page. Your belief that all religious adherents have conflicts of interest in editing religious articles is at the root of this issue. For that reason, I propose a topic ban as outlined below. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And on the other side of that, can you point out where we've had any interaction, pleasant or otherwise, as I don't recall ever having spoken to you or even been in the same thread with you before.--v/r - TP 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The other thing that troubles me with Andrevan as an admin is oft-quoted belief that policy trumps consensus. That seems a complete carte blanche to ride roughshod over any community decision and it disturbs me that someone can be an admin who thinks in this way. StAnselm (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well ... sometimes policy does trump consensus. To take an extreme example, no amount of consensus is going to allow a group of editors to insert BLP violations or copyright problems; and admins regularly close discussions (especially at AfD and RM) against what the consensus appears to be because they have to take into account strength of argument. So that's not a black and white issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Because assessing consensus meanings looking at policy-based arguments. Consensus is the community's mind on how to apply the policy in a particular situation. StAnselm (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Andrevan

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 propose that User:Andrevan be banned from editing all religious articles, broadly construed. His views regarding religious bias and COI have meant that he is not able to interact with other editors in a collegial way when editing and discussing those articles. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; Support. Regrettably, I agree. however, the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude being demonstrated here convinces me that a simple reminder will not be sufficient as a remedy. Ignocrates (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As a party to a dispute with Andrevan, it is not proper for you to propose a topic ban. I hold this as a general perspective. A party seeking to topic ban another party, who they are in a dispute with, is something I can never agree to. If this had been proposed by an uninvolved party, I would consider it but as it is, I would oppose. Blackmane (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough, and I am certainly an involved party (e.g. Andrevan said that I should not be editing the Gospel of Matthew article at all). However, the dispute regarding the article is now finished, so I would not describe myself as currently in a dispute with Andrevan. This is now regarding where we go from here. I was also basing my proposal as much on what Andrevan has said in this thread as anything he has said and done in the dispute over the Gospel of Matthew article. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I may be critical of Andrevan but we're not at the topic ban stage yet.--v/r - TP 06:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic bans are not for removing editors from subjects where you disagree with them. Black Kite (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify (since this appears to be directed at me) - this is not about any disagreement with the content issues of the article. (The dispute appears to be over, and the article is in a stable state.) Rather, it is disagreement about the very nature of editing, and who is entitled to edit articles. And yes, I disagree most strongly with Andrevan on that. StAnselm (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think my point was that at the moment, we seem to be getting a lot of entries at ANI where editors have a disagreement over an article and then head here asking for topic bans for their opponents - I would say that topic bans are a last resort (well, a second last one) rather than a first one, and I'd really expect to see long and well-documented evidence of persistent abuse before going along with that. Black Kite (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Andrevan is a well respected Bureaucrat, Administrator and Mediator who after a failed ANI against me was asked to Mediate. The anti-fringe editors turned on him because he made several statements in my favor, for which Ignocrates etc are holding a grudge. If one reads Andevan's statements in context you will see the accusations against him are totally false. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:31, 10 October 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.

Andrevan admonished

I propose that User:Andrevan be admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, per the code of conduct described under administrator accountability. There is more to being an admin than the use of tools; the community elects our admins to positions of trust. More is expected than what has been demonstrated here, specifically (1) bad faith, (2) breach of basic policies (incivility, edit warring, npa), and (3) poor judgement. Ignocrates (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:ADMINACCT is about admin actions. It cannot be used in this context.--v/r - TP 06:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm basing my proposal on the precedent set by ArbCom. Please see the Ebionites 3 case, particularly the principal pertaining to Conduct unbecoming an administrator. There were no tools used anywhere in this arbitration case. Ignocrates (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• An Admin doing his duty! User:Melissadolbeer (a new user who left Wikipedia in 2005) who said "This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia." It is still on her user page. I believe editors at Wikipedia should never be made to feel this way.

More recently, was how User:Davidbena was treated during his first month at Wikipedia. Within five days of this newbie joining Wikipedia he was falsely accused accused of wrongful behavior and brought before ANI/Aug to be banned. Later, as we were about to start mediation he was again brought before the Feb/ANI again to be banned.(He withdrew from the mediation process). He asked why don't the "brass at wikipedia" do something???

At Mediation I was intimidated by the following order to withdraw from the process: "Frankly, if this continues even another few days, I am going to find the time to file an Arbcom request and solicit permanent sanction, being either a full site ban, or at least a topic ban. Ret.Prof. you need to withdraw again or we are going to arbcom this time." Although I did comply, I felt it was very, very wrong. Finally re User:John Carter & Ignocrates diff4 diff5 diff6 diff7 diff8 diff9 diff10 diff11 diff13 diff14 diff15 diff16 diff17 diff18

Andrevan also saved me from Arbitration. diff He is a completely neutral mediator, administrator and bureaucrat doing his duty! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Can someone clean up this off-topic mess? There are diffs in here from formal mediation, which is forbidden in a dispute resolution about conduct. Ignocrates (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong: The diffs here from formal mediation are allowed when they appear to be disruptive. ie The privilege does not extend to your attacks on the mediator! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of that party's communications.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If that is so, why were you instructed by the arbs to remove these diffs during arbitration? 14:51 1 Sep 2014 Now you are here doing the same thing. I advise you to proceed with caution Ret.Prof, or your efforts here may WP:BOOMERANG. Accusing other editors of making false statements and other forms of misconduct is not to be taken lightly. This also seems like an attempt to take over an incident report and make it about something else entirely. The formal mediation you are repeatedly citing ended successfully in March. I should know; I implemented the compromise solution. Ignocrates (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I filed a request for a block for attempting to use the ANI process to settle some kind of personal score. See below for details. Ignocrates (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please close this ANI. I apologize publicly to everyone who was offended or feels slighted. We're clearly not headed for a topic ban and this is regressing. Andrevan@ 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a self-serving request, but I agree that a T-ban is probably overkill. Therefore, I changed my vote to oppose based on the arguments above. However, something more than a boys-will-be-boys pat on the back is needed here. We already had that in the previous ANI. I still think a formal admonishment is the way to go. Let's see what a few more uninvolved editors have to say before we close this. Ignocrates (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I too apologize if I got carried away. I do not generally lose my cool. However this second ANI against Andrevan, for simply doing his job got to me! Sorry again! I agree that it is time to close out this ANI. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ret. Prof, I cleaned up your diffs and please note that waiving the mediation privilege is something the committee can do, but you can't. Please spend some time with the preview feature before you post more than a few lines of scrolling as it is very disruptive to the thread, and I've told you this before... I appreciate you rushing to my defense here, but there is nothing to get so excited about, and I'm sure that's exactly what your counterparts would use to discredit your position. Andrevan@ 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said I definitely overreacted and I have apologized! Hope my rant did not put you in jeopardy. It would not be the first time I have given my "counterparts" material use to "discredit my position". Thanks for the fix. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan, thanks for cleaning up this mess. That resolves the purpose of a block, which was not intended to be punitive but to stop the behavior. In any case, it has stopped now and that's what matters. Ignocrates (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comments - (1) the topic ban option was quickly opened and quickly closed 19:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC) before most of those who are familiar with the issue could see it. Could people please bear in mind that the planet takes 24 hours to turn on its axis.

(2) despite the rapid open/close, discussion of a "topic ban" is rather moot - despite that I think the concerns about the imbalanced approach of Andrevan are not (as the diffs show) smoke without fire. Since if Andrevan has the act-as-admin-in-Matthew hat removed (or as appears has already happened voluntarily takes the admin hat off) then as an editor with no background in the NT studies area there aren't many edits left to make.

(3) as far as I can see, having seen some but not all of it, it looks to me like Andrevan was originally acting in a good faith way in entry to a technically complicated expert zone where SBL type academic opinions (as characterized by the 7 or 8 the "WP Religion" editors, which note includes myself though I've been absent in this recent round) are in a drawn out content/source dispute against fringe/fundamentalist/popular/old/minority sources - represented in particular again and again by one editor with a longstanding issue about a "lost" "fountainhead" (what? Papias and Origen?) "original Hebrew Matthew" and issues such as dating/Gnostic gospels/Jewish gospels/etc. Into this neverending story, self-resurrecting deleted articles, arbitration (refused). Any admin walking into this area could have come a cropper like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, thanks for weighing in with a comment, but what, if anything, should be done here? We need to bring this filing to some kind of resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but as I said I haven't been following all the details. I had already expressed personal concern to Andrevan on his talk page about some of the earlier assumptions, and expressed concerned that an editor - by his own admission - not familiar with the field might be advised to not too hurriedly support the one-scholar-view being inserted, but I hadn't seen some of the more startling diffs above. FWIW I think as a good faith assumption of a good faith admin having been unfamiliar with the particular quicksand, I'd be inclined to just let it go. I think Andrevan has apologised (or should) for some of the diffs above, which voids the need for admonition, and the question of individual topic ban for someone might be better addressed to any editor persistently revisiting and repushing the fringe view that Andrevan unknowingly got dragged into. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with In ictu oculi's reasoning here. (1) The rush to close the topic ban was strange. It should have been left open until the entire incident report closed. (2) An apology, albeit a weak one, relieves the need for an admonishment and reduces this to a reminder. Let's close this with a reminder to avoid casting aspersions and focus on the edits rather than the editors, per Tom Paris. Ignocrates (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome messages to user pages

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

---

A user with the humble name Six feet nine inches full of muscles started his Wiki career by welcoming himself and then he went on a short welcome tagging spree, including creating user pages with welcome messages. I guess those user pages should be deleted. Iselilja (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspicions raised when one of his first edits was this to this very page... GiantSnowman 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Was just about to note that. I'll guess not a new user, but pretending to be one? I feel like I've seen this before, but don't remember who. ansh666 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins, see deleted contribs of Cebhfvaqfviue (talk · contribs) - same guy? GiantSnowman 19:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, user notified about this discussion... GiantSnowman 19:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's only David Beals.[50] Checkuserblocked by Ponyo.[51] Bishonen | talk 21:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

Sorry, but what's so bad about welcoming new users? That's what {{welcome}} is for, after all.--Auric talk 12:10, 10 October 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:ChestonMak1996 - Account using my real name

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

---

This user, originally only IP addresses, was vandalising the North West Rail Link page for the past week by replacing names in cited references and the article. Now this person has gone more extreme and created my account using my actual name. Please ban this user (and if possible delete, otherwise I may be mistaken for this user) ASAP.

Also, if needed, I can also prove that that is my real name. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't anywhere on your userpage stated your name so I fail to see how this "IP" would know? .... Anyway someone having the same real name as you isn't in any way blockable unless it's an impersonation which isn't what I'm seeing here..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone having the same name as you isn't in any way blockable on username grounds. This user is quite clearly vandalising: both in this edit and this edit, he's changing around lots of facts, and even making substantive changes to citations that clearly were correct before. Repeated citation fraud, aside from everything else, is still grounds for a {{VOAblock}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Search my username Marcnut1996 on the web and you can see my real name associated with it, for example my Twitter account. I do not know how the IP knows my name but it is definitely an impersonation because he has reverted my edits several times in North West Rail Link stating "Vandalism by Marcnut1996 aka Cheston Mak" as a summary edit. Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, Nyttend. I appreciate your help. Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 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 Help

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

---

Hi, I am a newbie of wikipedia. I need some assistance and guidance from you. Somebody add "hoax" content in "gook" page.

240F:15:A64F:1:59E7:FB65:DB1A:8A6B According to whois, He is japanese user.[52]

For example, This user blanked out original content from reference, and add hoax content which does not exit. (can't find such thing in any references)[53] This can be considered as vandalism, right? Maybe this person will keep change edit that way in future, without any explanation. In my conclusion, his edit is cleary hoax and considered as vandalism. How can i do now? In this case, i need request to page protection? or i need request to user block ? anyone help? I request to any admin should inspect this user carefully. --Hylkldab1 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hylkldab1: A warning to the user, left on the IP's talk page, would've been in order here. {{uw-vandalism1}} would have worked for a template. I'd leave a warning, but the edit is two months old. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. thanks. i added warning tag on his talk page. edit is two months old. yes, seems like nobody care that page. also i did not watch wikipedia for several months. should i request to page protection ? What will be next procedure to vandalism(added hoax) edit? --Hylkldab1 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Page protection would be declined, because there has not been any recent vandalism. Best advice would be to start keeping an eye on the page. If there starts to be frequent vandalism, then we can look at blocking the offending user and/or protecting the page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

ok. thanks to your advice. --Hylkldab1 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by 85.75.216.206

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.

---

• 85.75.216.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP User:85.75.216.206 is repeatedly violating WP:MOSMAC on Macedonia. When I informed the IP about WP:MOSMAC and asked them to stop edit warring, breaching MOSMAC and start discussing, the IP threatened I'd be "reported for not respecting UN ethics" (whatever that means). [54] Though probably not seriously meant, it still violates WP:LEGAL, and was followed by [55] I've asked for temporary semi-protection of the article.Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a week and warned the IP of possible sanction in terms of WP:ARBMAC. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 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:Ryulong and User:NorthBySouthBaranof

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.

---

After commenting in Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Describing_Quinn-Grayson_relationship_in_the_lede in response to another editor's proposal, I found myself immediately set upon and badgered by these two users who assumed bad faith and made several baiting comments, apparently under the impression that everyone joining the conversation must be strongly biased against their clearly non-NPOV viewpoint on the issue, which Ryulong explained by saying "It's to discourage editors whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to attempt to push a point of view that goes against common sense and what the reliable sources on the subject discuss."

I'm appalled at how poorly these seemingly-'heavyweight' editors are treating newcomers to a significant page. My initial comment on the article was to disagree with someone else's proposal--a proposal they also disagree with--but they're so eager to see pro-Gamergate zealots that it wasn't even read and understood. I have not edited the page, I will not edit the page, I made one comment that was more neutral than the user I was responding to and, well, here we are.

While I understand that this is an ongoing controversy, I am amazed at how full of vitriol these editors are. It is not what I have grown accustomed to from Wikipedia and flatly contradicts WP:CIVIL and WP:DNB. I am not experienced enough with Wikipedia to recommend what sort of action--if any--should be taken. I'm content to bring it to your attention.

They'll be notified in the next few seconds. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've hopefully fixed the huge cock up here- When linking please for the love of god use brackets (IE [[]]). Thank you!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I already fixed it and you reverted my fix! We're good now. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Snakebyte42 is a pro-Gamergate editor making BLP violating statements on the talk page. There's nothing to see here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not. That's rather the point. My statement was entirely neutral and a response to a more biased comment, which Ryulong is too insistent on assuming bad faith to even read. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Let me correct myself. Snakebyte42 is one of various dormant accounts of users who have involved themselves off of Wikipedia in the Gamergate debate who have returned to Wikipedia to push a POV on the article. While it was perhaps wrong to address him as such, it has become the norm on the article to have people like him appear out of apparently nowhere and begin making problematic statements such as this one that really belay his "I'm neutral" standpoint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not push POV. I am not pro-Gamergate. I did not edit the article. I disagreed with the suggestion of including Zoe Quinn's motivation for sleeping with Nathan Grayson. Anything else is poor communication on my part or a failure of comprehension on yours. Please stop telling me who I am and what I think. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could explain why you chose to use the phrasing "a desire for positive press or a desire for penis drove Zoe Quinn onto Nathan Grayson's throbbing shaft" in that diff I keep linking to? Perhaps I was wrong in understanding your intent, but it's been months of dealing with editors who have an axe to grind and who have used similar language.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Because speaking to you calmly and rationally didn't seem to work, and being told I think and am saying things I do not think and am not saying leads me to anger quite quickly. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well we now know that there was a misunderstanding.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all I wanted, man.Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:Ryulong (there, he's been notified) is a hugely disruptive editor, see that top of this page now (before it's archived) and his blocking history. The fact that every single user who has contact with him ends up in a huge conflict should show that his last block (I think it was for a month, although were I a stalker I'd know more accurately) has simply not taught the needed lesson. Ryulong can rule, he can't deliberate, or even pay attention. Admins who might think I am on a vendatta should also look at the fact that the last time Ryulong was blocked for a month I refrained from editting an article over which we had had conflicts. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  Medeis, drop the stick already. You didn't convince people that I was a danger to the project in Nanshu's thread so you're not going to do the same here. Stop complaining about how I resized your Ultraman screenshot. It's getting old.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• The initiating user made an allegation of wrongdoing about a person that has been repeatedly debunked by reliable sources. I pointed out that reliable sources have debunked that allegation, as discussed in our article. The initiating user then admitted that he didn't even read the article content before commenting on the talk page and states that it is uncivil of me to point this fact out. Talk pages are for discussing article content and I hardly think it uncivil or irrelevant to note that the user hasn't read the article on which he purports to be commenting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to read an article to comment on the suggestion to include something. It's obviously not there, or people would not be suggesting ADDING it. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So you've initiated an ANI thread because you don't like me pointing out that you haven't read the article on which you commented, and now you've admitted that you never had any intention of reading the article and don't think you should have to read the article, which means your commentary on the article is entirely uninformed by the actual content of the article. WP:BOOMERANG seems to apply here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I made no such allegation. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, you did. "A journalist failed to disclose a close relationship with someone he was writing about and giving positive to." That's your diff. I'm not sure how you can claim you didn't write it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a relevant allegation. Say it with me now. Allegation. It's not something I intended to present as fact, as I made quite clear later in the comments. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So then you knowingly lied when you just said 9 minutes ago that you "made no such allegation." OK. I think we're done here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I did not make the allegation. I was discussing it. As an allegation that has been made by other people. I was not asserting its truth. I do not assert its truth. I DO think it is relevant to include in an article discussing the controversy. Please read my actual words instead of this opinionated zealot that you think I am. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you up in arms at me pointing out that the allegation is false and has been debunked by reliable sources, which you'd have known if you bothered to read the article before jumping into the talk page discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm up in arms about you attacking me because you think I'm saying it's true, and jumping into a discussion that had nothing to do with pro-GamerGate sentiment. If you are policing the page in this way you must be driving off people by the score. You are attacking people you perceive to have different views, and they don't even have them!Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said you believed it was true. Rather, I pointed out repeatedly that it is false, and that you would have known its falsity if you bothered to read the article you're commenting about. By publicly restating an allegation of wrongdoing by a person, whether you believe it to be true or not, you are inviting others to point out that the allegation is false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not when I am discussing it in terms of what should or should not be displayed as an article. The allegation itself is relevant to Gamergate. Gamergate cannot be discussed without discussing the allegation. Its truth or falsehood is irrelevant. You badgering me about it was *irrelevant* to the purpose of my comment. I haven't looked into it enough, but let's say it has been conclusively proven false. I can still say that it, and the fact that it has been proven false, are relevant to an article about a controversy. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You wrote A journalist failed to disclose a close relationship with someone he was writing about and giving positive coverage to. This is all that matters here. I'm going to now correct myself and state that you believe it to be true, because if you didn't think it was true, you wouldn't have stated it uncritically and you wouldn't have said that it 's "all that matters here". You're claiming that a debunked allegation of wrongdoing is the only thing that matters in an article that you admitted you hadn't even bothered to read.

You have no authority to tell me that I can't comment on your public talk page statements and point out that you're making statements which have been shown to be false. You don't get to control who says what about your claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There's this thing called context, you know? My comment was in response to this statement: "The only allegation that matters for the purposes of GG, and thus nullifying the BLP aspect, is that she slept with Grayson explicitly for getting positive press cover, not that this was cheating on her ex." THAT allegation doesn't matter, the allegation that I mentioned is the one that matters. If you didn't barge in assuming bad faith, you'd have seen that. MATTERS, in this sense, being in terms of the Gamergate article. The statement I made is not the statement you read.Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• "XUser is a pro-Gamergate editor ..." Ryūlóng, this line is devolving to the level of an ab homine to dismiss someone else's statements rather then address the content of their statements. —Farix (t | c) 20:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  There's been an extreme problem with users joining the fray on that Wikipedia article for the sole purpose of POV pushing under the guise of "I'm just new, but look at what [sources already in the article that support my view point] say". Snakebyte42's decision to use the language at the end of his comment here isn't helping matters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should lead by example if you feel it's not being done to you. Starting an ANI thread because of a misunderstanding is the least of everyone's concerns.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  I rather feel that I am. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  If their claims are full of BS, then counter it with evidence. However, simply stating that "X is a pro-Gamergate editor" as a way to counter their claims comes close to a personal attack and you should avoid that type of language. —Farix (t | c) 21:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't even make any claims. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  They have been countered with evidence time and time again. Some editors keep bringing up the same issues they have with the article despite it having been disproven to them once already, or others coming to the talk page to rehash those same arguments, often when they are already under discussion elsewhere on the talk page. Perhaps I should stop playing into the emotional aspect of things, but there's only so much to do when it's weeks and weeks of the same shit being repeated by unnecessarily similar voices day in and day out. And being sent push notifications when someone on Twitter bitches about me to the official Wikipedia account for responding to people on the talk page. Hell, someone linked the thread above started by Nanshu. My brother was right. I shouldn't have bothered to get involved with this gamergate garbage. I'm done with the article. It says what it needs to and there are plenty of other people capable of informing the latest editor who hasn't been on Wikipedia in 8 years and had 2 edits previously to make the same arguments as the new editor who has a thread half way up the talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ban them all. Nick (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Nick's solution. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support what Nick says. Nobody looks good here.Jeppiz (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  Any ban is just going to give me unending torment by the pro-gamergate crowd offsite. I already feel sorry for who ever runs @wikipedia after seeing my name show up whenever some new wave of gaters felt incensed about something I said on the article's talk page without any corroborating proof of doing anything negative to the article itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• As an involved editor at Gamergate (and one trying to get this more neutral than it presently is while staying within policy limitations), we are well aware there are many offsite pushes to try to change the tone of the article to be less hostile and/or more favorable to one side that is lacking otherwise decent representation in the press. As such, there are SPAs and long-dormant accounts involved on the talk page. That said, the attitude that at least Ryulong has been taking (effectively never to give them the time of day) is against AGF, and I've tried to point out that even if most end up being claims to fix it in a way we can't do, a few do offer some usable ideas, which is why AGF is important. Add that Ryulong's name has come up a few times recently on ANI, and while there's no immediate ANI action I can see, a brief wikibreak may be useful to cool off a bit. Trouts all around, of course. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Considering that Snakebyte42's third comment on the article's talk page was to respond to a simple correction of a factual (and BLP-violating) error with "What the hell is your problem?" I think complaints about 'baiting' and 'assuming bad faith' ring a little false. The massive uptick in new or long-dormant editors swarming that talkpage in the past few days has understandably left some a little short-tempered. But in this case Snakebyte is absolutely the one who was doing the 'baiting.' The tendency of some longtime editors to coddle these often very disruptive contributors and expect others to do the same has only inflamed the situation on the talkpage. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

...by the editor who literally told me to go 'fuck off' and who's account was itself dormant from July 3th to Sept 9th where your first edits after being dormant was to the GamerGate afd. You've contributed nearly exclusively to that page and its talk page after you got out of your dormancy. Tutelary (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And for your part, a strangely high percentage of your edits to that article's talk page have been geared towards attempting to discredit me personally. Yeah, I was inactive for all of two months. Terribly sorry for that. But I'm talking about people who've been inactive for years, most of whom had only a handful of edits even when they were active. So your comments here suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of why SPAs tend to be problematic. And yes, I told you to "fuck off," Tutelary, because in your effort to present me as an "SPA" you actually lied about my contribution history. You stated that I had edited fewer than ten articles, which is patently untrue, and characterized my contributions to the articles I do edit as 'excessive,' when in fact my contributions to Wikipedia appear to be more diverse than your own. Semi-automated vandalism reverts aside, you contribute almost exclusively to anti-feminist topics, and while my list of articles created may not be the most illustrious, it's still longer than yours. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"You sure aren't helping GamerGate make its case that "it's not about Zoe Quinn," are you?" "Then why was Quinn sent so much vitriol?" Bait. Assuming bad faith. Snakebyte42 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So you launched a zillion-word ANI thread over a true observation that barely rises to the level of mild snark? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether you intended to or not, you made a statement that was a clear violation of WP:BLP. You did not say that people were claiming that Zoe Quinn slept with journalists for coverage. You said she did it. You got the reaction you did because you were making comments very similar to a number of other overtly disruptive editors who are present on that page. The short tempers are the fault of a far-too-lenient approach towards disruptive editing, and sanctioning these editors rather than the ones causing the disruptive is not going to do a thing to improve the article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

This discussion can't end here. Dreadstar went on to indefinitely block Snakebyte42 for a BLP violation, although Snakebyte42 has been registered since 2012 and had no previous block log. All issues relating to Ryulong were ignored, although several editors here raised concerns. That's not how boomerangs work. --Pudeo' 23:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Let it go. None of the concerns are valid and I'm taking a break from the afflicted article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

While the concerns are valid, ANI is not the forum for addressing long term, suboptimal behavior. WP:RFC/U is the appropriate venue for that. NE Ent 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock of Snakebyte42

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 administrator Dreadstar has indefinitely blocked editor Snakebyte42 for vague 'BLP violations' and for the basis of policy of WP:DISRUPT. However, when I attempted to hold Dreadstar accountable for this block, inquiring about these specific BLP violations and the indefinite block of a long term editor who had only begun editing this topic area, I was told 'The admin responding to the unblock message will determine all of that. ' as if the admin reviewing the request knows any reasoning about Dreadstar's block beyond the block reason, the post that caused it, or anything of the sort. The exchange between me and Dreadstar at Dreadstar's talk page is particularly relevant; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreadstar The one sided exchange between Snakebyte42's reasoning (on his talk page) on why he shouldn't have been blocked and Dreadstar's response ended with a response from Dreadstar saying 'WP:BLP applies to any and all Wikipedia pages, including article and user talk pages. Dreadstar ☥ 22:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)' It's also particularly disheartening to see Snakebyte42's talk page, where he elaborates he's been on the site for so long, and he can't even know what conduct he did that got him blocked. I've not been able to get a clear clarification of what exactly this user did to get blocked, and how it was so particularly rule breaking or incorrigible that the editor had to be blocked indefinitely for first offense and without warning. As such, for lack of evidence regarding disruption of this user, Snakebyte42 is to be unblocked. Tutelary (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Tutelary (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Support topic ban User:Snakebyte42, User:Ryulong and User:NorthBySouthBaranof. Their ownership and behavior on the article and talk page is disruptive. Giant WP:OWN problem that has nothing to do with BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oh fun, an evidence-free accusation of wrongdoing. Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unfortunately, few place any faith or weight in your opinion in Gamergate-related matters. Snakebyte42 is presumably an adult, seems to possess a fluent grasp of the English language, and appears to be competent, though severely misguided when it comes to misogyny/GG topics. Those are instances in where some sort of wiki-advocacy on another's behalf might be useful. Since none of those conditions are met, you're more or less just a busybody butting in to unwanted venues. Snakebyte42 can handle hs own unblock appeals and can choose to hold the blocking admin accountable per WP:ADMINACCT if he feels said admin is lacking in that area. Cliffsnotes; butt out. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the type of comment that will soon be struck per sanction for the tone in which it was written. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Some people are bothered by the truth, I know. The point is, the blocked editor is perfectly capable of speaking on his own; there is nothing wrong here other than the filer's own unbridled aggression within this topic area. Tuletary is shit-stirring against an administrator who has made administrative discussions against single-purpose accounts that share Tuletary's point-of-view om Gamergate. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Remember a block isn't a ban, Snakebyte42 can ask for an unblock at anytime.... Anyway he screwed up and thus now facing the consequences ... like we all do really. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Then tell me his incorrigible, absolute crime. Tutelary (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a highly-inappropriate statement about two living people discussed in the related article. Any admin can see it in the revision history of the talk page if they wish. Those of us who saw it have no intention of repeating it here or anywhere else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to risk being blocked by repeating as such. But I do believe that you were engaging in that same discussion, here; Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Describing_Quinn-Grayson_relationship_in_the_lede Very often brought up, and it needs to be gotten right in the article, and is necessary to discuss. It came out of a thread of TDA trying to figure out a good way to include it without violating BLP. Looking at the exchange, he was extremely blunt, and he even opposes the Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson thing explicitly, saying her motiviations didn't matter. I'm confused; isn't that exactly what North and Ry have been arguing for? That it be excluded? Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose/Keep blocked. Tutelary says, "...I've not been able to get a clear clarification of what exactly this user did to get blocked"; do which I say, look directly above, where it's laid out. If you can't understand that, then you don't belong anywhere near these articles, nor should you be secretly communicating with the editor -- if you have something to say, say it where everyone can see it. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from all Gamergate-related pages and discussions for Snakebyte42 (talk · contribs) and Tutelary (talk · contribs). The former could probably then be unblocked (see current unblock request), while the latter once again shows that their participation is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Could you drop the freakin' stick? Just because the last discussion ended with no consensus doesn't mean you get to harass me with another thinly veiled attempt at getting me banned from the entire site because you have a personal conflict with me. Tutelary (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If someone's getting there behavior called upon I personally don't think it's right for that person to then just close this and pretty much dismiss it ... that's my opinion & no I'm not going to edit war over it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Tutelary closed the above three times (1 + 2 + 3) despite it containing my proposal for two topic bans including for Tutelary. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The first time was due to not wanting this to drag out since Fluffer finally gave a reasoning--which is what I really wanted. In default, if admins cannot come up with a suitable reason for blocking a user or evidence, the user should by default be unblocked. That's essentially what I was proposing. I honestly didn't see the thing at the bottom about the frivolous topic ban against me. The other two was not wanting to start a whole 20 day long ANI page request that ultimately ends in no consensus because somebody wanted to see an editor they disagree with topic banned. So again, can you drop the freakin' stick? I know you really wanted to see me topic banned/site banned earlier, but come on, this is starting to get filthy. Tutelary (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock excepting in response to unblock request. Oppose topic ban. Oppose edit warring over closing this thread. NE Ent 02:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Wow--what Ent said, just about. I don't see the need for a topic ban, and I believe that Snakebyte is done with editing GamerGate. However, to expand on Ent's "unblock request", the current one, even if apparently revised with Fluffernutter's advice, is clear as mud. Snakebyte says "that was the statement..." but I can't tell what they're talking about. Specifically, it needs to be clear that whatever was said in the rev-deleted edit, from 10 October 19:49. I can't tell from their unblock request if they understand what some people have been trying to explain them: a. the BLP applies everywhere; b. the language used in that rev-deleted diff is simply unacceptable. Now, I will add that they probably wrote that awful post as a response to Ryulong's heated post, but explanation is not justification. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I notice you didn't block anyone over the edit-warring on the close, though. Good thing they weren't questioning an admin's sacrosanct behavior I guess.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Funny how all that happened in between my looking at the thread and following the diffs, then clicking "edit". That takes more time than a quick soak in piss and vinegar, you know. Now shoo, and find something useful to do; if all you have to contribute to this thread, which is about someone correctly getting blocked for BLP reasons, is some pissy comment at me, you should probably consider sticking to Talk:Gamergate controversy or Jimbo's talk page, where I'm sure you're welcome. Leave this board to the experts. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm surprised we're even having this discussion as this was an obvious call, and those supporting unblock all appear to be involved parties. We're well past the point with this article where we should be leaving out tea and cookies for editors with an axe to grind against the subject of the article. These are SPAs headed here from Reddit and 4chan and God knows where else, and we shouldn't be pretending they are all innocent new editors who just happened to wander to this specific article to begin their career as apprentice encyclopedia authors. This is the encyclopedia where everyone can edit, but not the encyclopedia where everyone gets three chances to insult Zoe Quinn before we say pretty please and stop. An unblock request was already turned down by an uninvolved admin, so already have outside endorsement that this was a solid block, never mind all the comments here. All the editor in question has to do to get unblocked is show some awareness of the mistake and a promise to adhere to BLP policies, so that's hardly an impossible hurdle to overcome. Unblocking now without this step would send a message that their negative behavior was appropriate and would send a message to admins that steps taken to vigorously enforce BLP will be overturned if the subject of the article is unpopular enough. Gamaliel (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock for Snakebyte. Support topic ban User:Ryulong. His ownership and behavior across the project is disruptive. Neutral on topic bans for other users as univolved in specific edit conflicts. Giant WP:OWN problem that has nothing to do with BLP. Per Heyward. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Medeis, you're probably going to have to start a separate thread for this. Personally, I think the temperature there might go down some if Ryulong focuses their considerable attention elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Holy shit, Medeis let it go. It was just a fucking screen cap.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock I don't care what the editor said in violation of BLP, especially at this point with all the WP:INVOLVED admin activity and other abusive admin activity going on with this topic area, which includes this block. An indef without warning for a first offense in a situation where there was bad behavior all around hardly strikes me as appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That you don't care is reason enough to disregard the rest of your commentary--which consists of nothing else but unfounded accusations. I think you should try and focus on abusive editors a bit more; your defense of User:Tabascoman77, blocked for NOTHERE but guilty of a blatant and egregious BLP violation in the same affair already suggests that you cannot edit objectively (or discuss policy competently) in this area. Drmies (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't care because there really is no way it warranted an indefinite block without warning by an involved admin who calls Vivian James an attack cartoon. Further note is that the admin in question has made several over-the-top or incompetent admin actions. There are too many involved admin actions going on in this topic area. Granted, I ignore it when Dreadstar or Cuchullain full-protect the article because of other editors edit-warring, but those are still involved admin actions. As far as Tabascoman, if the supposedly egregious BLP violation is the edit that got suppressed, I assure you it was far from egregious. I do not even believe it warranted revision deletion, which was carried out by Dreadstar, let alone suppression.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and support firm administrative action against any editor engaged in BLP shenanigans regarding "Gamergate" and Zoe Quinn. It has gone on too long. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The block is clearly way off: indefinitely blocking an editor who has registered in 2012 and had a clean block log for a single talk-page BLP violation. Indef block should rarely be the first measure, especially for not a singular violation. --Pudeo' 10:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  I'll also add that Dreadstar made a similar bad indefinite block recently for CSDarrow; see. Basically everyone thought it wasn't solid and the unblock request was accepted. If feminism/antifeminsm topics gets you heated up, perhaps you should leave admin duties for someone else because administrative actions should never be done in the heat of the moment. It really shows in the quality of those decisions. --Pudeo' 10:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean the block where you were the only one to voice dissatisfaction of the block on CSDarrow's talk page? Blackmane (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and PhilKnight wanted a clarification as to whether it should be considered an Arbitration Enforcement block. So basically the "everyone" who disagreed with the block was...you. Blackmane (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh right, the block was overturned just because I was dissatisfied with it. Time to re-read the section then. Already Cailil [56] noted that indef block was the wrong sanction at that time and recommended that Dreadstar wouldn't go for it. (CSDarrow however has been sanctioned after that incident too and is currently on a 1-year block). --Pudeo' 16:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read either of their comments. Neither indicated that the block was bad, per se, although, granted, commentary indicated the duration was considered long. I would expect that had Dreadstar set a fixed duration block, there would have been no dissent,but that is by the by. So in that regard, I still maintain my original point that the block was not considered "bad", except by yourself, although the block duration attracted disagreement. I was party to the later discussion that upheld the 1 year block on CSDarrow. Blackmane (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support gamergate topic ban instead of block - the editor has suggested this, and I think it would resolve the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Agreed with PhilKnight. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what good a topic ban will do for an editor who exclusively and problematically edits in a single topic area. I think the block was fine and oppose an unblock, largely because this is just another account that has been resurrected to steer the content of the GamerGate article to a fringe viewpoint (namely that the incidents related to gamergate are unrelated to harassment or sexism but instead are just some innocent investigation into journalistic integrity in games). Protonk (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Question - If I'm remembering the correct case, the editor in question had posted a statement, which taken as-is, was a BLP violation. He then argued it was a typo. Have I got that right? And if so, did he fix his typo? Or did he leave it in place and argue about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, and drop the throbbing shaft stick; per Gamaliel and Cullen. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support temporal topic ban Also topic ban for Ryulong, what is it the 4th ANI you got this month? Can any admin tell me with a straight face that his behaviour is acceptable? He constantly bites noobs, it's uncivil in almost all his responses and has a STRONG bias on the subject, going so far as to insult and calling supporters of said movement fags, giving his past history while being an admin, is anyone even surprised? You should look at Masem, a totally neutral editor, civil and helping noobs, has included both the journalistic aspect and the misogyny aspect, on the total opposite of Ryulong Loganmac (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  If anyone is going to be banned, it has to be you and every other account being used solely for the purpose of pushing a point of view on the article that is not supported by reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many times someone decides to drag my ass to ANI in a week, in a month, or in a year. If the community decides that there's nothing actionable, then I've done nothing wrong to require anything that you want to be done to me. And would you stop fucking bringing up my comments from off the site? None of this bullshit would have ever happened if some gater hadn't gone to contact me off-site because they had a bone to pick with me concerning comments I've made on-site. And I would not be espousing my opinions off-site if this bullshit had not been picked up by these same fucking people who have nothing better to do in their lives than complain that their precious hobby is open to women and casuals now. I've never let any of my personal opinions on this subject enter the article space. I've even heavily contributed content that discusses what you seem to term as my opposition. If there's any outcome to this thread, it better be that we kick you all to the curb like 4chan and Reddit had done before we did. I've already decided to voluntarily cease editing the article because I don't need any more stress considering everything else going on in my life. But you can go on and on about how I used "gamergate fags" on my personal Twitter account, and go "Ryulong's a homophobe", "Ryulong is biased", and every other baseless complaint sent my way because I dared to espouse an opinion on a conservativistic movement that only exists because one man wanted the internet to hate his ex-girlfriend and it just so happened she made a video game no one liked and her new boyfriend worked for some third rate video game website no one really likes in the first place so people began to falsely rally behind a movement seeking journalistic integrity without actually addressing anything other than people who crowdsourced for the game no one likes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - OK kiddies, time to hop out of the pool because it's time for the adult swim; no one in this project is ever going to be banned or topic-banned or blocked as a result of people voting on a different editor entirely and tacking on an "oh yea and Block X" while you're at it!" to the end of their input. If you have concerns about an editor in a topic area, then you shall start a brand-new ANI section on that editor specifically, make your argument as to why you're doing it and what result you and, and provide evidence to back up your assertion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 00:34, October 12, 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:AsceticRose is removing data even though 3 other people disagree with him

This user has removed the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj&diff=628935524&oldid=628929903

But 3 others have added and edited this information. He claims it is irrelevant. I feel this is going to get into an edit war.--Calcula2 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would dismiss this as a content issue. There has been no discussion on the talk page yet. Perhaps somebody post on the talk pages of involved editors and call them to discuss this. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Debresser for your post. A good amateurish enterprise on part of Calcula2. Calcula2's vengeance for me probably came from Talk:Battle of Badr where Fauzan and me disagreed with Misconceptions2's recent edits to the article. Thats why, I suspect some kind of Sock puppetry regarding Calcula2, a newly-created account (7 Oct 2014). But I really have no time to run behind them. -AsceticRosé 04:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a new user and not a sock of Misconceptions2. Misconceptions2 would be using his own account rather than battling on a new account. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why dont you take it to an SPI investigation. I have no problem with that--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Misconceptions2 You know that it could have been done. SPI generally requires strong behavioral evidence. Let's put this way, AsceticRose must stop making baseless assumptions. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

New evidence, deleting data though 5 people disagree with him. REMOVE HIS ROLLBACK rights

Now it looks like User:AsceticRose is about to engage in an edit war here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Badr&diff=629010905&oldid=628939771

First a discussion was called for in talk page to build consensus. So 5 people agreed to something and 2 people didn't. Because of this I added back the data that was in dispute. Then this guy removed it claiming their is no consensus.

In hajj page he is also asking to make a discussion in talk page just to add a little data that he keeps removing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj&diff=628935524&oldid=628929903

I bet even if their was a consensus and the small amount of data he keeps removing is added back, he will remove it again claiming their is no consensus like he in badr article. He is like a politician leading people on wild goose chases, agreeing to certain rules then not even abiding by it when it goes against him--Calcula2 (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Calcula2 AsceticRose hasn't used rollback during the reverts. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support blocking him and removing his rollback rights if he continues to edit war. He is already engaged in an edit war. Theres a consensus in theres a consensus on talk page that the data which was added should be kept as it is well referenced and expands and povides more information about the event--Mohsinmallik (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  Um, I'd remove his rollback rights if I saw any evidence of a pattern of abusing rollback for purposes other than described in WP:ROLLBACK. But I'm not seeing it. As far as I can tell, Ascetic Rose isn't using rollback for edit-warring. Rollback right is therefore a separate and unrelated issue. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

---

In the discussion on Talk:Battle of Badr, following editors are involved;

Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs · account creation)

Junellene.sapinoso (talk · contribs · account creation)

Mohsinmallik (talk · contribs · account creation)

Article contribute (talk · contribs · account creation)

Calcula2 (talk · contribs · account creation)

AsceticRose (talk · contribs · account creation)

Fauzan (talk · contribs · account creation)

The first five editors are related in some way or the other, they edit each others userspace, participate together in AfDs, etc. Pertaining to sockpuppetry, few SPI cases were opened regarding Misconceptions2, where it was determined that these (and a lot of other) editors are different or technically unrelated but related off wiki. I think that these editors should avoid editing in common areas, at least in discussions and the way they determine consensus: "5 vs 2" shows some kind of WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality.

If any further action needs to be taken, the first thing is that the discussion should continue on the talk page. ANI is not a place to complain against editors of other viewpoints. Restrictions might be placed on these editors on commonly editing the pages where consensus is determined if such kind of behaviour persists. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 20:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is turning into an edit war because AsceticRose keeps removing data. On wikipedia people are allowed to work together to make articles. So if some peopel are editing each others sandboxes and draft articles that perfectly allowed on wikipedia, thats what I have been told on admins.--Mohsinmallik (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that SPI investigation was going on regarding Misconceptions2 where a long lost of suspects were reported, and several were indefinitely blocked by admins. Mohsinmallik also appears on the suspected list. So I was somewhat right in smelling a rat here. When Misconceptions2 edits an article, Calcula2 remains silent, and the vice versa.

I'm hard-pressed by time now. So, I will be brief here. Despite the fact that it is a content-related issue, Calcula2 and the related others are cleverly avoiding the talk-page discussion, and instead using this ANI to shift the focus from the following issue.

In Battle of Badr aricle, Misconceptions2, just a few days ago, introduced a minor viewpoint for reasons best known to them, and re-wrote the article from that perspective ignoring the mainstream viewpoint regarding Battle of Badr. The previous version stood for long, was written in a scholarly manner, and passed the test of time (of course there can be some minor issues which can be solved).

As per WP:BRD, it is their task to describe how their version is better than the previous which they are ignoring. More on Talk:Battle_of_Badr#Recent_edits

Ah, again the accusation of edit-war has attached to my user-name above. Can anyone please tell me what can be immediately done to prevent readers from getting a distorted view of an important historical event through Wikipedia, especially when the introducers refuse to discuss and prove their point on talk-page?

Equally pathetic is the fact that they totally illogically brought the issue of my Rollback rights, probably to distract the main issue. Instead, should not they be given the advice to fulfill their burden on talk-page? -AsceticRosé 05:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fauzad just reverted data and is continuing the edit war here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Badr&diff=629153593&oldid=629102979 he reverted data claiming "Pelase discuss in talk page why it should be added". I think he is doing this on popurpose. Because he knows its been discussed in talk page and he even participated. He refuses to include the reason why this miltiary campaign happened, which was to raid camels and caravans for the booty. I think he is an Ahmadiyyah who has fringe views--Calcula2 (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So Calcula2 reported me in vain for a second time, now on AN3. I'm waiting for a third reporting from him, and if possible, a fourth. This will give me the opportunity to visit various unknown corners of Wikipedia!

I appreciate his great efforts to endanger and harass me, but feel sorry that he probably will not succeed. -AsceticRosé 03:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How to resolve this issue

This issue will be resolved if you stop removing this data all the time:

According to the Muslim scholar Safiur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri the purpose and reason for this battle was to raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further the Muslim political, economic and military position.[13]

According to the Muslim scholar Dr. Mosab Hawarey the goal was to take the Quraysh caravan and its camels, he wrote the target was "initially Quraysh camels, then fight erupted"[6]

The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir also said the purpose of this Battle was to capture Quraysh war booty/spoils by raiding the Quraysh Caravan, he claimed Muhammad encouraged the Muslims by saying: “This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it, Allah might make it as war spoils for you”, and like Mubarakpuri he also stated that the purpose was to make Islam dominant, he also claimed Muhammad said “so that He makes you prevail above them and gain victory over them, making His religion apparent and Islam victorious and dominant above all religions”.[14].

Also stop saying this is a fringe view. Muslim sources like clearly say it was offensive here: [57] . Also Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri is not fringe and his book Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum which is used as a source is celebrated and won notable prizes "he Arabic version was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seera" Stop acting like apologists--Calcula2 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Peter Downings and his WP:COI issues

Hello friends, Peter Downings a WP:SPA WP:COI editor who is making disruptive edits in two articles, Adnan Sami and Arshad Sami Khan. By his comments at Talk:Adnan Sami and on his talk page it's clear that he is closely related to the subject. And the subject, Adnan Sami, has asked him to do this changes (A case of WP:Advocacy). His changes include an highly unsourced, Non neutral, original research content with full of peacock terms like this, this and this also this. His edits are direct violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. Along with this all his edits are to the same article i.e. it's a SPA (all 150+ edits). His edits are disruptive and has been reverted by number of editors like Philg88 [58], MelanieN [59] and Babitaarora. Even after getting revert so many times he add the same problematic content. We have warned him and after a final warning by Philg88 he continued his disruptive edits [60] [61]. It is an issues of Ownership of articles combined with WP:IDHT rather than just a content issue. I ask an uninvolved admin to take a look. Thanks, Jim Carter 07:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Here is the diff of Peter Downings' justification for his edits: [62]. He makes it clear that he is speaking for the subject and that he believes he (on behalf of the subject) owns the two articles. He may have a point about certain issues that need correcting. But instead of posting those points on the talk page individually and letting people discuss them, he just keeps pasting his own version into the article - a version which is full of peacock terms and unverified assertions and is basically unacceptable. IMO this has passed beyond the point of content dispute and has become a matter of disruptive editing. --MelanieN (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a look.I made some additional cleanup. I don't see any sufficiently strong formal warning on his page. As a new editor, he may not realise the extent to which what he is doing is unacceptable, or the significance of the discussion being moved here. I think it might be unfair to immediately proceed to a block, and I therefore gave a final warning for ownership. Having edited the articlea, I don't want to proceed further myself. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair comment DGG. I too was reluctant to block given the combination of inexperience and/or misunderstanding of policy. Hopefully, your warning will do the trick.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your actions, DGG. I also went to his talk page and posted a detailed explanation, in simple English, of what he is doing wrong and what he should do instead. It's possible he isn't reading the links people post, and so he still just doesn't get it. I thought I would give him last shot at actually hearing what we are telling him. A question: DGG, I had assumed if he does it again we should notify you. But it sounds like you are ruling yourself out as involved? So if he does it again, should we come back to ANI? --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• The same editor just made the same kind of disruptive edit, once again, to Arshad Sami Khan. [63] The user received a stern final warning from DGG, and I engaged with him in a final attempt to explain in simple English how he should edit. It was after both of those interactions that he went ahead and pasted in his own version once again. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't see any edits by Peter Downings on either articles since the 8th, the day prior to DGG's warning...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread the history. Thanks for the correction. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter Downings is probably a pseudonym of an Indian, in view of his bad English.

• I think, it is an issue of Ownership of article. He want to prove that he is the P.A of Adnan Sami and better know about him. when I have reverted his edits, he told me he has been authorised by Adnan Sami. Here is the msg Personally sent by Adnan sami.

I just wished to clarify that my Wikipedia page has been open to 'abuse' for quite some time. Hence much of the information on it has been distorted for quite some time. I had requested Peter Downings to rectify it for me. He did so but I am told that you had it reverted. I would appreciate it if you may kindly revert it to his new edit which has been authorised by me and also guide me if possible as to how to protect my page as it seems to be a free for all starting with my family origins to my personal life etc. Babita arora 10:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempted censorship at Bryant & Stratton College again - probably sock

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

---

There's a continuing effort to remove Laurie Bembenek from the list of notable alumni at Bryant & Stratton College, even though she has her own sourced article. It was User:Goldarab doing it before they were blocked, so it's probably them back again as an IP. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say Bembenek ever attended, let alone graduated from, that college? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There does appear to be a lack of evidence to back up their attendance at this college. They might be noteable but there doesn't appear to be anything to link the two together. Might be better off leaving it out until someone can reliably link the two. Amortias (T)(C) 22:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The source book is available on snippet view and it says she attended, she took an associate degree in fashion merchandising management. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Diannaa any chance you could add the citation as it was sitting there with an unsourced tag since may 2010. Amortias (T)(C) 22:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, where is the link to that fact in the Bembenek article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that the Unabomber is listed among the graduates of Harvard, but he was nationally known, and there are lots and lots of famous Harvardians in the lost. I'm not so sure Bembenek was so well-covered in the media. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I re-removed Bembenek from that college's list. If proper citations are provided, re-adding her could be considered, but it's not necessarily a ticket to inclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And Diannaa added it back, with that citation. But if it's not worth mentioning in Bembenek's own article, why does it belong in the school's article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Bugs, I did that before seeing your post here. I really don't care either way, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It was important enough in her life that she mentions it in some detail in her autobiography. The only argument I've seen for excluding her is that it's bad for the school's reputation, which is not a valid argument. I've restored it. Lists of notable alumni and faculty are a bog-standard feature of articles on universities, high schools and colleges. And there is considerable question whether she is in fact a murderer rather than a victim of a frameup by a notoriously sexist department. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa added the citation to the Bembenek article, so all seems well, and in fact the citation is no longer needed in the school article, just the link to Bembenek. If someone persists in deleting the name on the dubious grounds that it's bad for the school, the page could be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I could also point out that the notion of it being bad for the school's reputation is not supported by any evidence, hence it's original research. There's no indication that the school cares about this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 12 October 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.

India Against Corruption again- possible legal threat by editor who states policies don't apply to him

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - is this a legal threat by User:Claus at Name Defend DE? His userpage states

• This is user page of Claus @ Name Defend.
• I am a declared paid editor to inform editors of factually incorrect content, copyright violations, trademarks violations, impersonations, other breaches of law and breaches of WMF "Terms of Use" etc. which have legal consequences, and which breaches and consequences the average editor may be unaware of.
• I do not consider myself bound by self written community policies. I am editing under WMF "Terms of Use" and "privacy policy"

He is editwarring at India Against Corruption (just gave him a 3RR warning) and on his talk page explains his edit by saying "However, my edit is a constructive edit to uphold a core policy of the Wikimedia Foundation's "Terms of Use" - to prevent impersonation of the named organisation. The controversial deleted text was inserted by another paid editor "Sitush", against whom the affected organisation has very recently filed a criminal complaint in India, including for impersonating a History graduate from Peters House / Cambridge University so as to mislead the Wikipedia community and pose as an authority." Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doug, see the section immediately above this. Note that Name Defend IPA was blocked indefinitely by Salvio giuliano as a checkuser block [64]. This is clearly the same person, and in fact, the socks are probably all the same person. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Claus at Name Defend DE now blocked by Euryalus for "Making legal threats: and probable block evasion as sock of User:Name Defend IPA". If yet more proof is needed that this is the same sock as all the rest, note that the copyvio tag on Anil Trivedi was actually placed by the blocked sockpuppet Duffycharles with a very inappropriate edit summary [65]. Within minutes of Duffycharles being blocked for sockpuppetry and legal threats, User:Claus at Name Defend DE registered an account [66]. Today he addded to the report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a checkuser look for sleepers. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The section above was added while I was editing this one, so I missed it. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if the article should be subject to full protection as the socks/meats seem to regularly make the requisite edits to get around semi. DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That is tempting, given the collateral damage they're prepared to inflict to get around semi-protection. (It is striking that someone claiming to oppose corruption would expunge an account of human rights campaigning.[67]) It doesn't seem that India Against Corruption is active any longer, assaults on Wikipedia by people claiming to act in its name aside, so while there might be details to fill in about its history, there may be no notable developments to add. NebY (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but it will only partially help. If this faction (who claim to represent the Hindustan Republican Association) cannot get at that article, they will continue disrupting multiple related articles, including biographies of those they perceive as their enemies. They will also keep pursuing time-wasting quasi-legal issues in retaliation. They have now made 2 unsuccessful attempts to have India Against Corruption removed from Google's search results on spurious claims of copyright violation when their spurious claims here didn't work out for them. They also claim to have filed a sexual harassment case with the WMF on behalf of one of their sockpuppets, etc. etc. Interestingly, the latest copyright infringement they reported (at Anil Trivedi) actually was an infringement, although not of their material, despite the bogus claims made at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 that they were "acting for the affected person/s". This is long-term abuse dating back to 2008. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This "faction" does not represent the Hindustan Republican Association.

Do you have any reliable source for your outrageously false claim on Anil Trivedi that he was in any way associated with India Against Corruption as continues to be stated in that article ?? This is exactly the kind of IMPERSONATION of the IAC organisation which the "outed" ADMIN "Sitush" was paid to promote on Wikipedia. (PS: Read the news report in the Times of India - Lucknow edition about paid senior editors of Wikipedia) which pisses the IAC off.

BTW: Claus has emailed Admin:Euryalus, our identities are disclosed and verifiable. NAME DEFEND is going to expose how corrupted paid Wikipedia Admins have systematically fabricated "checkuser" results to show that 27 NAME DEFEND editors systematically operating from many countries on very widely located ISPs and using different computers and networks are showing as a single editor (@IAC sock-farm), whereas the 983+ still active Wikipedia accounts being used since 2005 with over 4,00,000+ edits (incl. 38,000+ on 2014) are not being detected by Checkuser. Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your above statement can you provide reliable sources to prove that Sitush was paid to edit Wikipedia. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the babblings above can't even get elementary facts right - Sitush isn't an admin - I can see no reason why we should be remotely interested in anything the latest sockpuppet could say. They have been plastering this noticeboard with pseudo-legal threats and similar bollocks for years, while presenting precisely zero evidence of any wrongdoing. Why should they do anything differently this time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the above, might it be reasonable to consider a blanket siteban on Name Defend, by whatever name? That statement comes off as an organizational mission statement to continually violate WP:NLT and pretty much blatantly states that the whole group is not here to write an encyclopedia. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well i think we can definelty lose this one, it seems uncommon for a new user to be able or willing to lodge an ANI and edit a request for arbitration [68] so soon form the start up. They appear to be tagging any page that can find that might be beneficial even if theyre not doing it correctly.Pretty much sums up not here.Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note appears theyve been reported to WP:AIV and blocked fromt here prehaps a good sign to close this off as it doesnt seem to serve any purpose now. Amortias (T)(C) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption again – further discussion

• Considering the personal attacks and allegation being made on their talk page, shouldn't talk page and email access be removed? Neatsfoot (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • DMCA India Against Corruption logo is relevant. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I wonder if a DMCA takedown notice is valid if it's filed under a pseudonym or if there's some requirement that the filer provides some proof of identity? NebY (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Irrespective of whether the DMCA takedown notice was valid, the image was appropriately removed from Commons as it was clearly a previously published non-free logo. It appeared in March 2011 on indiaagainstcorruption.org, the official website of the India Against Corruption organization (the one the WP article is about—not the one "Name Defend" claims to be "defending"). See Wayback Machine capture. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Do the Name Defend accounts operate from a limited set of IP addresses? If so what would be the collateral damage in blocking that range? Blackmane (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this before. Maybe you want to unclose it, User:Black Kite, since so many comments have accrued now? Not that I'm bothered. Anyway, Duffycharles is not a sock but a puppeteer, editing since 2008, with HRA1924 and Lindashiers| their socks, as confirmed by checkuser Ponyo. (Man, we sure have a lot of so-called "fabricated checkuser results" in this area. A whole CU conspiracy, obviously.) From Duffycharles's odd edit history, with long gaps, I'm sure there were more socks during "his" inactive periods. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling about the IP range, from what Ponyo told me. But might it be reasonable to tag all of the above as socks of Duffycharles per WP:DUCK? If it's even worth the bureaucratic trouble to try to keep what Black Kite accurately calls this mob tidily registered. In any case, I for one am certainly ready to block new quackers on sight, if people will tell me about them. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think this all needs to be documented on a page at WP:Long-term abuse to keep track of this lot and to help identify future socks. At the moment, the information and connections are spread all over the place. For example, there is an even older account than Duffycharles. See User:Landirenzo, registered in 2007 and checkuser blocked as a sock of HRA1924 in April 2014 by Tiptoety (along with 2 others). Plus there are Dkgpatel (blocked for legal threats but clearly a sock) and Rti india and AcorruptionfreeIndia (both with the same modus operandi as all the others and both with checkuser blocks but no apparent documentation as to whom they were socks of). "Claus Bruentrup" and "Name Defend" are simply the group's latest wheeze for pursuing HRA1924's agenda. The "company" website, Name Defend, Institut feur Geistiges Eigentum, was hastily assembled on 13 September 2014 (complete with copypasted German sentences and images of handcuffs and the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom (!). It is registered to Sarbajit Roy [69], the convenor of the group now calling itself "India against Corruption" and who are pursuing their various attempts at legal action here and at Google. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if Long-term abuse is the best place, Voceditenore; it's being considered for deletion, for one thing, and nobody looks there, for another. Perhaps an SPI? Its archiving system works pretty well. I agree that there should be an overview somewhere, and SPI is surely the place people are likely to look. Considering the mentioned checkuser blocks that don't indicate a sockmaster, perhaps we should ask someone with checkuser permissions to lay out this mess, in some place. (There may already be an SPI that could be fattened up.) It's not an attractive job… hmm. I already pinged Ponyo. Pinging Tiptoety, DeltaQuad, and Elockid, who made the checkuserblocks mentioned above: does one of you guys perhaps feel like providing an overview? Yes, I know, it's amazing the lengths I'll go to to delegate messy work to someone else. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Oh boy that was a long time ago. The only thing the CU log indicates AcorruptionfreeIndia is that it was in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadurr/Archive or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ginsuloft/Archive. Those were the two cases I was investigating at the time of the block. Other than that, I have no recollection of the block and nor does my email. If I can help further, please let me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen. Reading this thread brings back bad memories. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to recuse myself from any further involvement following numerous legal threats, attempts at outing, and insistent emails from this group. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that, in order to keep things simple and ensure the accounts are blocked quickly in order to limit the excessive disruption, a synopsis of typical behaviour should be outlined on a user subpage (or at WP:LTA if it survives AfD). The page could be linked to when making duck blocks or in discussions such as this. This is a nasty group known to use extreme harassment and litigious tactics, on and off-wiki, to try to intimidate editors who disagree with them. The quicker each new sock/meat account can be shut down the better as opposed to adding unnecessarily to an already bogged down SPI process.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It rather looks as if Long-term abuse might survive, maybe even with a snow close, and is still in use. If there was an IAC entry there, could links to it be placed in archived SPIs? NebY (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen and Ponyo, the final result of Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse was "snow keep". The material should preferably be documented at LTA. Given this group's past history of harassment, outing, legal threats, etc. I personally think it would be too dangerous for any single editor to keep the material on one of their user pages. Another alternative is as a subpage of Talk:India Against Corruption, although that's not as centrally accessible. But wherever it ends up, the documentation needs to be done. Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if the LTA list were deleted, the process of documenting who the abusers are would continue. Just as the process of banning people here. But we can't document the banned users, only the LTA's. Who determines the LTAs? Doc talk 08:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Common sense, in this case. My life has been affected by this lot and I'm willing to bet that you have no idea of the extent to which that is so, which includes relocation. The comments of Ponyo, Tiptoety and Voeditnore should give you some clue, though, as should my recent out-of-character (and completely misinterpreted) reaction. - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What is it with Manchester? Doc talk 08:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be the location of some the best content creators and defenders of the Wiki, although I'm one who is now only sporadically in the area. What is it with you? - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Get an account. I've no clue who you are, and neither does anyone else here. Doc talk 09:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you have no clue about the entire issue being discussed here, let alone who I am. Probably best that you either clue-up or desist from commenting. I have an account and there are plenty in this thread that will recognise me. - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So you have an account, and yet you're using this IP instead of that account. I would like you to explain how you are not a "sock" account, please. Doc talk 09:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc, drop the stick. There's no problem with this editor editing logged out. It isn't sock puppetry as we define it, and I would really appreciate it if you don't further abuse one of our most abused editors. Having to leave your home because of threats is no laughing matter. There's no question in my mind about this being worthwhile documentingd at LTA if not elsewhere as well. These people are a serious menace. I also am avoiding doing much in this area because of justified fear of litigation or worse. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc is just being an oblivious ass, pay no attention, mr IP. People using their real name or otherwise findable should be wary of working in this area. I for my part ain't scared (I defy them to find me), just lazy, also rather busy IRL. I wouldn't mind hosting such a page in my space, if somebody else does the heavy lifting and e-mails me the doings. However, the snow keep of LTA at the MfD, especially the comment from Worm That Turned, suggests to my mind that the LTA may be useful for this after all. In my previous comment, I wasn't well aware of the difference between LTA and the recently deleted Wikipedia:List of banned users. Anybody can start an entry on that page, but think about your own safety before you do, use a sock if necessary. (Not your IP, there's nothing safe about that.) Bishonen | talk 10:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

Yes, Doc please drop this stick. This discussion is not about your personal views on the deletion of the banned users list. You have no idea what is going on in this (very long term) situation. Those of us who have encountered these people know exactly who the IP is and why they are fully justified in currently editing while logged out. Their work re this particular problem has been nothing short of heroic. Like Doug, I too am worried about editing in this area, even as a copyright clerk (I'm not an admin). Care to see some of their latest threats [70], [71]? Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I assume DuffyCharles/Name Defend is de facto banned, and can be blocked on sight (ie w/o waiting for a legal threat from the latest incarnation) ? If there are any t's to be crossed to make the ban formal, we should do it now. Abecedare (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is my understanding correct that these Name Defend accounts show no difference from the previous IAC defenders? I suspected this from early on, the lack of any info on "Name Defend Services" or "Claus Bruentrup" was another clue. The company registration details above further confirm my suspicion. If so, is the Sochi removals [72] typical of IAC editors or perhaps a clueless (if you're going to get involved in other areas, at least try to not do a controversial one) attempt to show they're not a single purpose account? Obviously none of this is a big deal, but I'm trying to get a clue what's going on having watched this from the sidelines which occasional comments. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nil Einne, see here (User:Claus at Name Defend DE) and here (User:HRA1924). In my view, The Sochi removals were a cack-handed attempt to validate their stated purpose: "inform editors of factually incorrect content, copyright violations, trademarks violations, impersonations, other breaches of law and breaches of WMF Terms of Use", i.e. to continue their current pose as a quasi-legal firm which intends to "police" Wikipedia. Claus at Name Defend DE did the same kind of mass content removal at Delhi Police that day. The removals via multiple edits also serve to build up enough edits to circumvent the semi-protection at their real goal, India Against Corruption, although that certainly backfired. Note also, I had cleaned the copyvio they reported from Anil Trivedi and re-referenced it. However, they continued to complain that the article was "impersonation" because according to them, he does does not belong to the "real" India Against Corruption. After the latest name defend accounts were blocked, and after I had removed the copyvio from the Trivedi article, 49.204.6.36 returned to the article, removed the mention of India Against Corruption [73], then changed his birthplace contrary to the references and the subject's official biography [74], and then summarily redirected it to Aam Aadmi Party [75]. That IP may not be connected to the sock farm, but the timing is rather curious. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The IAC bastards have now filed a false report with ICANN, using the Lindashiers (talk · contribs) monicker, regarding a domain name registered to me. That domain is now being deactivated due to their lies and I'm struggling to work out how to halt the process. This is yet another warning to those who are involved in the farrago, but I'd also appreciate any advice that experts in ICANN procedure might be able to offer (probably best done by email, otherwise we'll drift miles off topic). The WMF have been completely useless throughout this mess, which is massively disrupting my life and has included threats against my life. It's no wonder I'm going into meltdown here. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you've already received help and I don't think I could really offer much and I understand you probably wish to keep details to a minimum for both privacy, beans and offtopic reasons. But if you're willing, it would probably help to clarify what you mean by a false report. Did they claim trademark misissue under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy? Or claim they were the owner and you stole it from them? Or manage to trick your registrar in to thinking you'd trasferred the domain name to them? Or trick your registrar in to thinking they were you and done something dodgy? Something else? The trademark/UDNDRP in particular would probably have to be handled fairly differently from any impersonation. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. More or less what I expected I guess although I forgot about the semiprotection/number of edits issue. And confirming that despite their extreme persistance and willingness to use extremely dodgy and disruptive methods, they don't seem to have much competence. As I mentioned, if they'd been smart they would have at least chosen something which would have people thanking them to try and establish their credentials, there are surely a lot of real problems they could deal with. But I guess that takes too much. (I'm not sure whether this qualifies as beans since if they were to do something useful, it wouldn't actually be a bad thing even if it were to try and evade detecting. In any case, I highly doubt they're going to take any of this on board.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Per requests above, I have created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm and transcluded it onto the main Long term abuse page. Feel free to add to the dedicated page, and to link to it, for instance when you block a new IAC sock. Very good page! (We owe it to a couple of users who don't wish to appear; I didn't do any of the actual work.) Bishonen | talk 19:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC).

WCVB98swell: Threatening users, vandalism, 3RR, Edit warring

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

---

The user has been causing havoc here at Wikipedia.

Edit warring/Threatening users:

WCVB98swell violated the Three-Revert Rule and has been edit warring with Trivialist and insulted as well as threatened him and myself to get banned.

Examples from the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20th_Television&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:20th_Television
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Small_Wonder_%28TV_series%29&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SportsNet_New_York&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Animation_Studios&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warner_Bros._Television_Distribution&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_assets_owned_by_21st_Century_Fox&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp&action=history

User was warned several times during this month of his disruptive editing:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WCVB98swell&oldid=628641981

Then user removed his warnings, saying that he will delete his talk page and was warned again by TheGGoose.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WCVB98swell&oldid=628703047

User once again removed his warnings from talk page, and I warned him along with Trivialist.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WCVB98swell

King Shadeed | Talk 15:40, October 11, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. WCVB98swell has been repeatedly warned, and they're a net negative to the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I get the impression the user is very young, but they create works for others and really don't seem to listen, so I guess it's time for a block. I've blocked for 48 hours for slow edit warring and disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

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

Legal threats regarding Iron Man

Since WP:NLT states to report legal threats here, I am notifying administrators here of a possible situation where a couple of editors have been legally threatened by a media figure. Details can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Blatant legal threats, by two different IP's, so probably an IP-hopper. Can't be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, that's a pretty clear legal threat. A WP:DOLT analysis shows that the dispute appears to center on a minor mention of Elon Musk in the article for the 2008 Iron Man film, where apparently Robert Downey, Jr. had met Musk prior to his portrayal of Tony Stark. I have two points to make in this vein: First, regardless of the correctness of our article, nothing in there rises to the level of meriting legal threats (i.e., it's neither libelous nor portrays a living person in a false light). Second, individuals so close to the film's production as Downey and Favreau (the director) make it fairly clear that Downey's portrayal was influenced by a meeting with Musk. The claim in the article is given very minor prominence, which is appropriate per WP:DUE. Given we have an IP hopper here, or an anonymizing VPN, a rangeblock may be worth considering. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What about contacting the email address stated in the messages to the editors? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think emails or other forms of contact should be left to the WMF's legal department. I have now blocked 176.67.82.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who threatened to issue a cease and desist letter. De728631 (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And the article has been temporarily semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that any e-mails should be left either to WMF or not made at all. Even if the given e-mail address appears to be legitimate, offering an e-mail address is sometimes bait to be outed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any faith in their statements. Marvel has enough lawyers to know what channels to use. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats are a bluff at least 99.9 percent of the time, which is one reason their perps can't be tolerated. If the problem continues, probably better to semi the article (which has already been done) than to range block other possibly-innocent users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That email address is most dubious; it indicates someone at a specific firm who seems quite unlikely to be the fellow charged with editing one line on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the email addresses that was left is to Jeff Klein at DKCNews. There is a Jeff Klein at the PR firm DKCNews and he does work with Marvel Entertainment, http://dkcnews.com/jeffrey-klein/ GB fan 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing how this person is hopping on IPs from the UK to Romania, probably safe to say that it is an impostor. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be a courtesy to notify the real guy about this impostor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the other email address was the guy who founded the company but is no longer involved in the day-to-day operations. I'm quite dubious he's coming back to work to fuss over a single line of Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't 109.103.28.89 be blocked too, for these legal threats [76] [77] ? Cardamon (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And for gross personal attacks as well. I took a look at AIV and there's a big backlog there, so it looks like the admins have taken Columbus Day off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to all who acted on this. Really appreciate it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You thanked them about 20 minutes before they actually did anything, but all appears well now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus in adding links to other Wikipedias instead of red-links?

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 see in Benjamin Walter they have added a coupe of links to people's articles in fr.WP. I reverted them and they did it again. Before I go ahead with this, I want to see what the consensus is. I have not encountered this issue before. I think, and prefer, to have red links for people that might be notable, awaiting an article, as opposed to sending users to another language Wikipedia which is useless if you do not read that language. This also gives the impression the links are complete, when in fact they may not have an article in en.WP. Is there a guideline or rule I missed on this one? Note in case it is not clear, I am talking of inline text links, not interwiki links on the "languages" section on the left for entire articles. I did read WP:MOSLINK, WP:REDLINK, and WP:INTERWIKI which show the mechanics, but are they appropriate in this case? -- Alexf^(talk) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There's also Help:Interlanguage links#Other, which, like the rest, doesn't show a consensus, though it provides reasoning for use in article text, so I guess it's at least saying they're not disallowed? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say this is a discussion which would be better suited to one of the village pumps. My guess is we shouldn't be inlining links to other languages, but I have no idea if there's been a lot of discussion on the topic. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The {{ill}} template offers a nice compromise for this case. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not know of {{ill}}. It plays well in the interim. Posted to the article. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of turning this into WP:VPT shouldn't there be a software-based way to do this involving Wikidata? For instance, if you click a redlink and Wikidata knows that's the English title for something we have an article on in another language, it suggests those as alternatives? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Except for wiktionary, hell no. --NE2 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons given by the OP, I think it's a bad idea to randomly link between different language Wikipedias in place of actual articles. I really don't see linking to the other language helping most users. If someone can read French comfortably enough that linking to the article was just as good, why would they be reading the English Wikipedia instead of the French Wikipedia? If their preference is for English, why would linking to the French be just as good? Yes, multilingualism is more prevalent than monolingualism, but most people still have only one L1 (regardless of how great their L2s are).

And if one is thinks there's relevant material on the French Wikipedia, why not translate it? WP:RS doesn't say anything about sources having to be in English. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts Ian. I asked before starting what could become an edit war which might force me to end up blocking the guy, and I want rules, or consensus before I do. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I came across a similar situation a couple weeks ago and found there was no English Wikipedia guideline against these types of wikilinks (some other language Wikipedias do prohibit them). I'm not wild about the idea, especially with BLP's, as we can't control the quality of the target article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

{{ill}} is used in the featured article Departures (film) and lots of other articles. It is clear from the parenthesised country code following the redlink that the reader is not following a normal wikilink. Even if a user cannot read the foreign language directly, automated translation software is often good enough to give a reasonable overview, so I would not discount the link's helpfulness. --Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• When I read Wikipedia, I usually start with something I specifically want, and then I get directed all over the place following blue links - which, to me, mean there's more stuff for me to read (and that's the fun of it). I would find it frustrating and annoying if those links started taking me to foreign-language articles that I can't read, and I think most people would too. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A while ago, I did some work on a list of specific people, mostly Hungarians. When the person didn't have an English language article, I first entered a red-link to the English wikipedia, then an inter-language link displaying the text "in Hungarian", e.g. [[Tamás Esze]] ([[:hu:Esze Tamás|in Hungarian]]). That way it's obvious what people would get if clicking on the links. The best thing to do would have been to translate the Hungarian text and write an article in English, but as I don't actually know Hungarian that wasn't an option. (Google translate would be helpful for a reader, but not good enough to actually base an article on). Daveosaurus (talk) 04:58, 13 October 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 to Ian Brown

A user repeatedly, over several months it would seem, changes a referenced location of Timperley, Altrincham to Manchester on the Ian Brown article (the editor incorrectly argues that Timperley is in Manchester - when even the articles themselves on Timperley and Altrincham make it clear these are not areas of Manchester.... the editor doesn't appear to understand the different between Manchester the city, and Greater Manchester the county). I have explained to the editor recently that Timperley is an area of Altrincham and that Altrincham is a town south of Manchester in the county of Greater Manchester. These are all facts, but this refuses to accept this - if you look at the edit summaries of some edits you will see some of their abusive comments using several usernames including WIKifact agent, Anastasiabbb, Bollockbrother and IP 90.213.94.117. The abuse is ongoing and would appreciate an experienced editor to look at the article and hopefully protect the page (I am aware this would stop myself from editing, but I am more interested in the page being accurate!).

92.8.19.201 (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparent paid editing

G2003 (talk · contribs) has been writing elaborate blatant advertizements for years and this seems to be the sole purpose of the account. I think a block is appropriate. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Hard to know how much evidence I can provide here without being accused of WP:OUTING, but G2003 is almost certainly a paid editor – I have seen his advertisement on a site, which also contains reviews by people linked to the articles the account has created. He has also been adding links to his own personal/business website, and some time ago created an article on himself (since deleted). The situation is made more problematic by the fact that he still denies being a paid editor. I gave him a warning yesterday about continuing to edit with a COI, but he hasn't responded yet. Number 57 11:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any advertisements by G2003, at least AFAIK. But I can't help thinking it's not a coincidence one of the first articles G2003 worked upon was PeoplePerHour a freelance work website. Following the link to the website G2003 helpfully provided [78], and then clicking "buy" and "find freelancers" and A quick search confirms there 22 people are advertising wikipedia related services there [79] (to avoid WP:outing, I've specifically not linked any of them to G2003 or anyone else). Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I would say that G20003 is probably doing paid editing. Just went through first page of contribs

• dif added inline hyperlink to a personal website, immediately reverted. this is the link added, which is for someone named Gareth Johnson who does PR/communications work for hire
• dif same edit on another aricle, also immediately reverted
• created article then edited, immediately PRODed
• created this article on a designer, pretty promotional
• added significant chunk of text to company article here, quite promo "The first stage of this development has sold faster than any other in the company’s history"
• currently working on a glow-y BLP article User:G2003/Ashvir_Sangha
• created this article with dupe refs (to make it seem there are more sources than there are?)

that is just the first page of contribs. Going further back there are more like this.

I wouldn't be surprised if this editor was a paid editor and if so, not disclosing it is a violation of the Terms of Use. Not sure where things go from here. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It's more than probably. Like I said, there are reviews on his advertisement (on a site mentioned above) that are directly linked to articles created by the account (I can provide these privately if anyone requires definite proof). Anyway, I have been keeping an eye on the account for some time and will continue to monitor their edits. If they don't respond to my most recent warning and continue to churn out rubbish articles, I may block them and encourage them to communicate. Number 57 17:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at some of the articles created by this editor, some of them are deserving of deletion, and some are just over-hyped.

• Fabryan, although created over a previously deleted article, appears to be a notable fashion line - they have good writeups in Vogue. There's too much promotional material in the article, though.
• Robert Colville (publisher) is a non-notable publisher of a minor forex trading site. That article is proposed for deletion, and probably should be deleted.
• Out to Swim is a minor swimming club, and may fail WP:ORG. It's a close call; I put a proposed deletion template on it.
• Matt Woosey is a minor musician, and that article probably fails WP:MUSIC.

It's not clear what's paid editing, and what's just article creation. John Nagle (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor's articles on financial organizations, including Tristan Capital Partners and DAMAC Properties, are promotional happy-talk articles. Hotel Carbon Measurement Initiative is almost a copyvio from the organization's FAQ. (That article is in AfD.) Those three look an awful lot like paid PR. John Nagle (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Out to Swim and Gay Star News articles appears to be organisations the editor is involved with. All the others appear to be paid. Number 57 22:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

They've been editing for four years, but have never replied to any warning on Talk. Their only edits on their own talk page seem to be deletions to clear out warnings. Their editing rate was relatively low until September of 2014, with 860 edits over 4 years. Then the rate picked up, with 50 edits in the last 5 days. It's perhaps time to do something to get their attention. Cleaning up their stuff takes a lot of time from other editors. John Nagle (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to not be an admin, like me, I think we're missing a bit of their history here. A look at their talk page e.g. [80] shows a fair few deleted AFCs. I looked at this briefly before based on the info revealed above. Now that G2003 has commented I presume it's okay to say that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kayzure sakar appears to have been an early attempt at paid editing (since it was never completed I presume there was no payment). Tristan was a later more succesful one. I didn't really look that well, but to be honest I get the feeling that Number 57 is right and a lot of the editing was paid. (Although PeoplePerHour may be another exception.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Apologies I have done some paid editing through PeoplePerHour. I have removed all advertisements offering this service and will not do any further paid advertising.G2003 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Who for? You are required to disclose this under the Terms of Use. MER-C 23:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Neisseria meningitidis article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.239.3.183 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. I've also reported the IP at WP:AIV. (Although any admins reading this are more than invited to take care of it). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor has unilaterally closed an ongoing talk page discussion

See Talk:Colonel Sanders for the closed discussion. Even while people were continuing to add to the discussion, and it's not an RfC, Winkelvi has closed it and is insisting on keeping it closed. I have never seen this occur before. There was no consensus for closing this discussion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. No one was adding to the discussion at the time of closure. See here [81] and here [82]. Also note the editor reporting said the following, "You're absolutely right. Without a strong reference, this matter is moot" here [83]. The discussion was closed after a conclusion was reached by the editor reporting here who had appeared to come full circle and realize that adding content on the article subject's religion was not going to be possible at this time, making the original point "moot" (his words). Prior to this, there had been a good amount of disruptive and unproductive back and forth between the editor reporting here as well as an IP who has been disruptive elsewhere today. In closing the discussion because it appeared to be over, my hope was to keep further disruption and off-topic conversation, further devolving the positive ending into another cluster of insults and personal attacks. I don't know where the editor has been, but I've seen numerous talk page discussions closed in the same manner. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the other participants didn't consider it closed. One person doesn't have a unilateral position to close a discussion. I never reached a conclusion that the discussion was over, but that given a current lack of reference, the matter was moot as of now (but info could change the situation). But as anyone can see in the discussion, I had inquired about a reference and was waiting to hear about it. Bottom line: The discussion wasn't over, but one person decided it was. I don't think that's civil or constructive. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, re: your hope to "keep further disruption and off-topic conversation, further devolving the positive ending into another cluster of insults and personal attacks", I didn't see that happening. Everything seemed on-topic from where I'm sitting. While some of the discourse wasn't the most civil, I've seen far worse than that. There was no significant devolving. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, since I started the discussion, shouldn't I have some say in whether the discussion is finished for all time? But even if I thought it was finished, I wouldn't close it. I am open to others' ideas on the subject, as much as they want to talk about it, even if I disagree with them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any of the participants arguing for trying to post the Colonel's religion in the infobox. And whatever religion he followed, I would be shocked if it in any way informed his selling of chicken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bugs, if we were only including information that was relevant to the colonel's selling of fried chicken, we would not include his birth date, his family background, his education, his military service, or his prior employment history, either. Someone's religion (or lack thereof) is key personal datapoint; that's why the Template:Infobox person includes a religion parameter. As for the closing of a talk page discussion, any unilaterally closed discussion may be unilaterally reopened. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This type of argument, which more often happens in reference to Jewish folks who are notable for something not having to do with Judaism, reminds me of this one: A tourist in Jerusalem is visiting the Tomb of the Unknown Israeli Soldier. He sees a name on the tomb, Irving Levine or whatever. The tourist questions how this qualifies as the Unknown Soldier. The guard says, "As a tailor, he was known. As a soldier? Meh!"" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an argument, and that belongs in the discussion that was closed. The issue here is unilaterally closing an ongoing discussion without consensus to do so. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: An editor with several beefs against me has decided to step in an unclose the discussion at the Sanders talk page. Without weighing in here, by the way, and before this discussion has been closed/decided upon. (see here [84], here [85], and here [86]. I won't edit war there over this. It's ridiculous to do so, and the other editor is just looking for me to get blocked, anyway. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As an uninvolved editor, I looked at the discussion, saw that it was on-going, and have re-opened it. Now Wv is trying to edit war to keep it closed. This needs to stop, or needs to be stopped. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider the idea that what you did was untoward and leave the discussion open. I'm sorry if someone is tormenting you for any reason, but the discussion was indeed ongoing and therefore there was no consensus to close. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, Stevie, I don't "have several beefs" with Wv, nor have I been "tormenting him." I had the temerity to disagree with him on a couple of content-related issues. (Interestingly enough, I've seen Wv do some great work on the project, and even given him a barnstar for that work.) LHM^{ask me a question} 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't investigated the claim, but I was speaking in a general sense. I wasn't intending to cast any aspersions on your behavior. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• If it had not already been re-opened, I would have done so myself as an uninvolved third-party. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. I hadn't heard of Winkelvil until about two weeks ago, but what I have seen is problematic. He is the editor who instigated the Chelsea Clinton situation among other problematic trends I've noticed. -- Calidum 00:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed. I hadn't heard of you until a couple of weeks ago, either. Does that have anything to do with anything? Not that I can see. Just like your poor assessment of an action and opinion regarding BLP policy (BLPNAME, to be exact) that has nothing to do with anything (especially not this report) but has been supported by several editors and not considered "problematic" by them at all. Your attempt to tip the scales negatively based on bad faith is transparently noted, Cal. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. -- Calidum 00:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not even close to being the same thing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's not usual practice to "close" talk page discussions unless they are an RFC, which should be done be someone who hasn't participated in the discussion.
• There's not "close" exception to WP:3rr -- edit warring over a close tag is still edit warring.
• If a discussion truly has come to a consensus, closer or unclosing it doesn't actually matter -- it doesn't change the consensus.
• As there's clearly not a consensus, discussion should continue; WP:RFC is recommended if more viewpoints would be helpful. NE Ent 01:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• If they want to resume arguing over a point they already agreed upon, I suppose they must. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparent agreement was on one aspect. There is nothing the matter with continuing discussion on closely related points. Regular article talks are not closed in this way in the vast majority of cases. If the talk dies down, it will be archived 90 days after the end. Unilaterally closing the discussion was the issue here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Either way, you'd have a hard time finding sourcing demonstrating that his specific Christian denomination had anything to do with building his chicken empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Looking at articles about other fast-food founders, there's nothing about religion for Ray Kroc, Dave Thomas or Glen Bell. What's special about Col. Sanders? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Nothing? HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • That's an argument that belongs in the affected discussion on Talk:Colonel Sanders, not here. This discussion isn't about whether references can or cannot be found. Again, this discussion is about a unilateral closing of a talk page discussion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Instead of coming here, you could simply have started a new discussion on that talk page, addressing whatever your next complaint about the Colonel's artcle is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:TypeONegative13 personal attacks and edit-warring

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

---

User TypeONegative13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly declined my requests to stop adding information into a certain article - Slipknot (band) - which has since been protected to prevent further edits; on top of this however, he (or she) has been launching a tirade of personal attacks against myself, which can be seen in the below logs, despite my attempts to keep the conversation civil: [87] [88] [89] [90]

It's clear that the user is an avid Slipknot fan, but their edits to numerous articles on subjects related to the band are, at best, disruptive; he has been warned several times on the matter. Indeed, their last edit (as of writing) was simply an insult directed at myself, after I made it clear there was no need for such use of language. (And I fully expect another one when I notify about this report.)

Personally, my good faith has run dry with this individual, and I would like to request a restriction of their ability to edit (or a full ban) for a length of time to be determined by the administrator dealing. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well theres definetly personal attacks and edit warring hes also worked on the [91] to add unsourced information. Amortias (T)(C) 22:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked TypeONegative13 for a week for personal attacks and edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 23:19, 13 October 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.

Should 108.195.137.126 be blocked

Pro:

1. Clearly a sock or clone of User:Arthur Rubin/IP list.
2. Most of his edits are reverting my edits reverting other IPs who are the same person.

Con:

1. He had stopped 3 hours before I noticed it, and the IP is unlikely to be reused in the near future, but...
   1. The IP is even more unlikely to be used by anyone else, and some of the IPs in that range were reused within 2 years.

Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• The IP's contributions are almost 100% disruptive. In my personal opinion, AR, a block would fall into the "any reasonable admin" category. But they are clearly targeting you and your edits so some outside assistance might be helpful. Agree, though, that a block is unlikely to have any functional impact. You've logged it here; that's a start. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Module Syrian Civil War detailed map

Greetings all. I have a general question/concern - I have never "reported" an issue on this page before; if this is the wrong venue, or if my format or approach is improper, apologies in advance. My concern is regarding the general handling/editing of the aforementioned page. Concisely, inaccuracy/vandalism/POV pushing/vitriolic argument is epidemic. Unsourced pro-opposition editing misrepresentation of information in given sources, more mispresentation of information in given sources, more of the same, edits based on community accepted sources being reverted, unsourced edits without community consenus, the use of pro-SAA sources to validate edits marking SAA advances, and, as a side note, vandalism by random IP addresses on the Iraq module (which is essentially the sister map to the Syrian module). Please note that the above represent a mere fraction of the whole, and this sample is pulled from the last 7 days alone. Many "discussions" on the talk page are far from constructive as well. Simply, is there anything to be done about this? 1RR binds the hands of editors trying to combat such violations(?)/disruptive editing. Just looking for advice or help. Again, if I have committed any sins of procedural omission or etiquette, please forgive and advise. Thanks for your time Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed the issues and this seems to be much ado about nothing and doesn't rise to the level of POV pushing. It can be handled by proactively reaching out to editors with alternate views and doesn't require ANI. DocumentError (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Unbased allegations and public defamation by user:Supreme Deliciousness

I would like to point out that on 29 August 2014, user:Supreme Deliciousness publicly accused me of inappropriate canvassing (in capital letters), while having a content dispute on Syrian Civil War-related pages, which are also bound to Syrian Civil War community sanctions. The incident took place as part of my attempt to gain attention to discussion on main Syrian Civil War page, by notifying ALL related users from previous relevant discussions, no matter their opinions (clearly of all spectrum, including Supreme himself!). Despite clarifying that to Supreme Deliciousness and warning him that blatant public accusations with no basis can be considered as personal attack, he has not yet removed his accusation, which in my opinion is highly unfair and bullying against me as a regular editor on Syrian Civil War pages. Request to enforce him removing this "INAPPROPRIATE CANVASSING" comment ASAP, or else he should supply evidence of "canvassing" and file a complaint against me (as he proved to be able to in regard to user:Legacypac just 4 days ago).GreyShark (dibra) 18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As I have understood it, you started by presenting a wrong view of the problem (that it's about adding Israel as a belligerent to the Syrian Civil War and not about showing that Israel occupies a part of that country, no matter if they are a party to the war or not), and you are still portraying it as such. So no matter who you are notifying about it, if you are portraying the problem in a wrong way, I don't think it's acceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Iris, your support of Supreme in the relevant content dispute doesn't have anything to do with those public accusations and defamation, which is inappropriate at least.GreyShark (dibra) 21:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I clearly responded to what you wrote here above, where you defended yourself by saying you notified every party. I wanted to comment on that part as I myself have noticed this in our discussion. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. We are here to have frank and forthright discussions, a gentle caution about canvassing - if someone perceives it is occurring (whether it is or not is irrelevant) - is perfectly acceptable. We should not force other editors to communicate their thoughts or concerns in codewords or cryptographs for fear of being dragged to ANI as has been done in this complaint. DocumentError (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations and edit warring

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

---

This report involves 99.227.245.147 (talk · contribs · count) and Luke Evans (actor). The IP has been violating BLP and edit warring in the article since yesterday. I filed an edit warring report yesterday at AN3, but for whatever reason no action has been taken. Since that time, the IP continues to revert every editor who reverts him, and the battle has been going on non-stop.

Before coming here, I was tempted to block the IP myself under BLP policy despite the fact that I'm WP:INVOLVED, but I decided I didn't want to block and then go through a block review.

Even the edits that other editors have allowed to remain violate policy. For example, the article says that Evans is in a relationship with a Spanish celebrity. Yet, the article, from a Spanish tabloid, which was mainly repeating what the English tabloid the Sun reported, doesn't say that. Here is a Google translation: "The news has announced the British tabloid 'The Sun', citing as a source of information to a friend of the actor who would have stolen the hearts Jon Kortajarena, one of the most wanted men in the world, confirmed the news abandons list of the most desirable bachelors." The tabloid also says: "Meanwhile, neither Jon Kortajarena and Luke Evans, soon to take part in a new film about Dracula, have confirmed or denied their courtship, but the British media highlighted on numerous occasions were seen posing together in public events." ([92]) We can't report garbage like that as a fact in a BLP article.

If you look deeper into the IP's history, you will see other instances of BLP problems, all of which are centered around gay issues.

The IP should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would expect that an IAR block for BLP violations would be acceptable to most regulars here. Blackmane (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked one week for edit warring and BLP violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa, I should have brought this to ANI earlier instead of sitting on my butt and watching in frustration. I removed the Spanish model material from the article for the reasons stated above.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry your report went unactioned for so long. There's nobody around today, it's a holiday in both the US and Canada. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To everyone else, see the talk page section about this for further discussion. If I had spotted the content Bbb23 spotted as being a reiteration from The Sun, I would have removed it as well, or likely simply for being a "confirmation" by someone other than Evans himself. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 14 October 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.

BLP-related dispute at BLPN, with associated edit war at the article

This discussion is going nowhere, and the article (The Federalist (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) has seen edit-warring for a couple of days now [93]. This is very much about an external dispute being imported into Wikipedia; I suggest some intervention should be considered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe delete and salt the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Bugs, that would not be a solution worth discussing. From my perspective, the issue in the present BLP/N discussion is that a handful of editors do not like the factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content that has been added to The Federalist (website) article regarding the recent Neil deGrasse Tyson "quotegate" controversy, and demand that such content be removed as a BLP violation, but are completely unable to articulate any specific violation of the BLP policy or related guidelines. Yes, it's a problem, but unless an uninvolved administrator is willing to block discussion participants for having a talk page argument (as we are supposed to do when a content dispute is involved), I don't see what administrative remedies are available. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Have fun fighting the battle, then. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

LOCKDOWN URGENTLY NEEDED!!!! (Just kidding. But seriously, you may want to consider filing a request for full protection.) – Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Already requested and awaiting action. Amortias (T)(C) 19:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been locked... a couple hours ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As an editor that was completely uninvolved with this prior to noticing it on the BLPN, I looked into it. I simply can't reconcile the "rm per BLP concerns" with the actual content in question. I just can't find any issue with the content that justifies such claims. That said, I'm not sure what type of admin intervention Nomoskedasticity is wanting to see. Blocking of specific editors? Page protection? This request for intervention is very vague, and the lone "response" generated (from BB above) is quite unhelpful. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought this thing had already been deleted as "not notable", and was surprised to see it back in discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The result of the RfD for The Federalist (website) was keep. [94] --Obsidi (talk ) 21:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I would like to point out that Obsidi appears to be WP:NOTHERE to contribute to Wikipedia. In the seven years since he has activated his account, he has not created a single article nor contributed any significant content.[95]. His account is primarily used to disrupt the Tyson BLP. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I would like to respond to this personal attack. As you said, I have had this account for many years, but usually Wikipedia does a fine job of editing things and I don't disagree. Sometimes I might make suggestiosn to people on how to improve or in other ways try to help make the articles better. Its true I have gone on a hiadus and not edited much for a while over the 5 years I have been here. But that doesn't mean I am WP:NOTHERE see Wikipedia:Sleeper account I am actively editing at the moment because of what I saw as attempts at Wikipedia:Gaming the system. All of my posts have been policy based. Can you provide a diff the where I was disruptive Viriditas (talk)? This is now the 4th time by my measure that Viriditas has personally attacked me (to the point that I was about to go to WP:ANI myself before Viriditas removed his attacks). Including entering discussions on unrelated topics just to personally attack me. If the administrators wish to discuss my behavior I am happy to do so. All I ask that it be given its own section and that Viriditas be considered if WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate. --Obsidi (talk ) 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
          • I have alleged you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In the context of ANI, this is not a personal attack but an observation about your contribution history and a concern with moving forward. The majority of your edits concern Neil deGrasse Tyson, mostly on talk pages and noticeboards. Within those discussions, you have shown a penchant for IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, and you have focused solely on defending and pushing through fringe attacks against Tyson at all times. Since you're not here to build an encyclopedia, I propose that your account be temporarily blocked until you decide to contribute in a constructive fashion. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Feel free to create a section to talk about my behavior (make sure you add diffs of all the bad thing you think I have done!). My only comment so far on here was about the RfD that was decided as keep. --Obsidi (talk ) 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• The editorial behavior at this article and talkpage is abysmal even by the generally poor standards of Wikipedia political articles. Edit-warring and combativeness are rampant and are drowning out reasonable voices. I am strongly considering blocking Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs), Cwobeel (talk · contribs), and Obsidi (talk · contribs) as the most egregious edit-warriors, both to create some breathing room for discourse and to send a message about appropriate editing norms.

  While poor behavior is not limited to these three, they are the most active edit-warriors at the article and thus represent a reasonable starting point for administrative intervention aimed at promoting more appropriate editing norms. Both Cwobeel and Factchecker have previous blocks for edit-warring on partisan political topics; Factchecker's approach stands out even on that talkpage for its combativeness and vitriol; and Obsidi is a single-purpose agenda account whose last hundred or so edits are dedicated solely to litigating one side of this partisan political dispute. I'm open to other suggestions to promote a better editing environment on this page and article, preferably from people not already neck-deep in the battle. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish that you displayed similar concern for willingness to avoid content policies and abuse social policies as an end run around content disputes. Were that your standard, you'd just block Cwobeel and then see where things stand. Also, you ought to get another admin to do the block, otherwise it'll look like you're lashing out at me in retaliation for arguing with you at Joni Ernst. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have not edit warred unless you consider a single revert to be edit warrig, just check the page History. And from all the contention, I have been one of the few editors making efforts to find content for the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that I have been very active in this topic recently on the talk page. I have tried to make almost all my posts policy based (including answering as many of the questions from the editors who disagree). I would hope that just being active editor in the talk page alone doesn't qualify one to be blocked. --Obsidi (talk ) 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @MastCell: Please tread very lightly. I entered this purportedly BLP-related discussion only in the last 24 hours, as a previously univolved editor, and I can say with complete candor and honesty that Cwobeel and Factchecker are not the only discussion participants who have crossed the line rhetorically in the last 12 hours. Singling either or both of them out for special treatment would be nothing more than selective enforcement. Speaking as a previously uninvolved editor, I am disappointed by the degree of rhetoric employed and the attempts to wield BLP policy as a club to obtain a desired outcome in a matter where the alleged BLP violations are tenuous. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Any enforcement is going to be selective on some level. I attempted to make my selection criteria clear. I recognize that you may not agree with them, but I don't view status quo as a workable option here. I am avoiding comment on the application of WP:BLP; I think there are principled and compelling arguments to be made on both sides of the BLP question, but those arguments are not being made because strident, rapid-fire posts and edit-warring are drowning them out. However, regardless of the BLP question, edit-warring is a major part of the problem and the basis for the proposed sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As long as we recognize that blocks are preventative, not punitive, I will leave it in your hands. Everyone has now been warned. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

With the page being protected (see below), blocks would be solely punitive and thus inappropriate, so I'll withdraw my proposal above. MastCell ^Talk 00:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

One possibility would be to stubify the article, protect it for a month, and allow tempers to cool. RFCs can be then initiated to find consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mastcell: I'll be happy to not to touch that article or the talk page for a few weeks, if that would assuage your concerns. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I will start right now and voluntarily avoid editing that article and related pages until Nov 1st. - Cwobeel (talk)

How would that be different then the RfD that failed recently?[96] --Obsidi (talk ) 22:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That was an AfD discussion. RFCs are useful to attract uninvolved editors to weigh in in a content dispute. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I saw you making attempts at finding a middle ground earlier, but "stubbifying" the article is not a good idea. Any way you slice it, only one paragraph/section is in dispute. I also saw that your attempt at inserting third-party criticism of The Federalist was quickly deleted; if we are going to argue for inclusion of a brief statement of the "quotegate" controversy, then, to my way of thinking, there is little room for excluding reliably sourced and balanced criticism of the online magazine itself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever works, Dirtlawyer1. I am taking myself out of the fry for a while with the hope that cooler heads will prevail and a middle ground can be found. One thing is clear, the current environment, vitriol, and contention is getting us nowhere fast. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Protecting it would be a good way of forcing everyone to go do something else for a while. Hopefully this would help calm matters somewhat. RFC's should if listed correctly draw in outside input through the request for feedback service. Fingers crossed a greater range of input will help build consensus. Amortias (T)(C) 22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree protecting it would calm matters down. I would suggest picking the current page, the current page with removing the "Neil deGrasse Tyson controversy" section, or replace that section with the compromise section in the "proposed NPOV edit" in section 30 of Talk:The Federalist (website), and then lock the page. I have explained my reason for what I think should be included or not on the talk page, and will accept any of the 3 above if that is what an admin thinks the page should be. --Obsidi (talk ) 22:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Now have IP's jumping on board to remove the content. Will try to bump the page protection Amortias (T)(C) 23:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Im apparently better than I gave myself credit for. Page is now protected before I even had chance to chase. Will need to be taken to the talk page to discuss Amortias (T)(C) 23:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article due to edit warring. I've also removed the material identified as a potential BLP violation. Work it out on the article talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 23:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

[ NPA redacted ] Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikibullying and disruptive editing

Admin intervention may be required to look into possible Wikibullying and a wide variety of disruptive edits and page move warring from the following editor: RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These issues have been going on for several months now, and the editor in question has received numerous warnings about her conduct on Wikipedia. On the 11 October, she posted this angrily worded message on my talk page. Other problematic edits include removing maintenance templates without stating a reason for doing so. Not using edit summaries, although that is a minor issue. Move warring on articles. I even offered to assist the editor so that she may learn what Wikipedia is all about, and an administrator has warned her a few times for her disruptive behaviour. However, she continues to take no notice and does things in her own way without taking into consideration of the consequences she may be getting herself into. So I would appreciate if an administrator would kindly intervene and take any action that is necessary. Thank you. Wes Mouse 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wes Mouse, please don't revert other people's user talk pages like this. Any warning message may be removed by those who received it which is seen as evidence that they have also read the warnings per WP:TPO. Only truly administrative notes like block messages and the like have to remain visible for their relevant duration. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had undone that, as I had clicked the revert by accident. Doing two things at once got me distracted. Sorry. Wes Mouse 17:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I had clicked cancel, and assumed it had done so. Oh heck! And now it won't let me undo it. Wes Mouse 17:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done it for you. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is ever so kind of you. Wes Mouse 17:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

After looking into the edit history of RebeccaTheAwesomeXD I wouldn't speak of bullying. A single note directed at Wes Mouse saying that Rebecca would get angry is hardly a case of bullying and I wouldn't even call it incivil. Still, Rebecca needs to communicate more with other editors and should try to learn more about Wikipedia's manual of style and procedures (article naming conventions, uploading of media, etc.). Given the multitude of warnings she has received so far by editors other than Wes, I would think that a tutorial is a good idea, but it takes two to tango and the future tutor should probably not be Wes Mouse. All in all I fail to see bad faith in Rebecca's edits and I'm wondering whether her edits have become so disruptive as to warrant a block, so what should we do here?

I do see a problem though with Wes Mouse's edits, too. E.g. this removal of a section that announced an uncontroversial YouTube video without hotlinking, or the frequent interaction at music articles started by Rebecca and the massive templating of her talk page which might look like haunting (for the record: I do template the regulars), even though I'm convinced that Wes is only trying to help Rebecca become a better editor. Perhaps a voluntary interaction ban for, say, a month would do the trick of getting Rebecca to cooperate with other editors. What do others think? De728631 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

An interaction ban might be more difficult than one imagines, as we both edit the same genre of articles as well as on the same WikiProject, plus I also write the newsletter for Project Eurovision to which Rebecca would be in receipt of. In regards to the tutorial, I had hoped that Rebecca would seek the adoption process, despite the fact that I also offered myself. Naturally I would not have forced myself to tutoring Rebecca in the event she did want to take that option. However, the matter is a lot more complexed than one may be aware of. Discussions have taken place on several user's talk pages regarding the editing pattern - and a few editor's including an administrator agreed to keep an eye on Rebecca's contributions for a period of time. Such discussions include one in my archive and one in CT Cooper archive. Don't get me wrong, as some contributions that Rebecca has made are excellent, and shows potential of becoming an outstanding Wikipedian. But others that have caused problems and tensions between some project Eurovision members, have been worrying. For example, media related incidents, not abiding to verifiability, changing dates of birth on BLP articles without checking sources. Also removing speedy deletion tags and other maintenance tags for no apparent reason, nor using the edit summary or article talk pages to explain her reasons. When she gets asked about them, she just ignores people - and yes that can be frustrating at times. Wes Mouse 18:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As for seeing a problem with this removal, I see no problem whatsoever, as it was done based on the guidance at WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos. Plus Rebecca added the entire chuck without any citations to verify what she added. So challenging unsourced material is now problematic? Isn't sourcing content the core policy that binds Wikipedia together? Wes Mouse 18:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Making comments like this one is by far more problematic and again removing maintenance tags that are there for a valid reason. Wes Mouse 18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca often edits constructively, but this overshadowed by inappropriate behaviour and a general unwillingness to communicate and work with other editors, even if I wouldn't go as far as to call it wiki-bullying. Responses to Rebecca's edits may not have been perfect at times, but an interaction ban is over-the-top at this point and probably wouldn't help matters. I think the best strategy going forward is compassion and patience. I understand why people find Rebecca's actions frustrating, but my impression looking over her edits is that she is slowly heeding warnings. If there are further problematic edits then non-templated warnings should be issued, with a block only given only as a final resort in the event it becomes clear that she isn't listening. CT Cooper · talk 14:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment, CT. That sounds like a good solution to me. It may take a while and a lot more patience but in the end it will probably work. That said, I don't see a need for immediate administrative intervention either. By the way, Wes, I don't think there was anything wrong regarding WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos because Rebecca didn't embed a video file nor post a link while that project guideline even allows for linking to official releases on Youtube. And imo you only need inline citations for controversial content. Verifiability can be a quick search at Youtube or Google. But then that's my personal preference. De728631 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The bullying here does not seem to come from Rebecca, and I think Wesley should remember the spirit of WP:BITE and think twice before reverting constructive edits, even when imperfect. I've restored the music video info and sourced it/linked to the official videos, following the guidelines at WP:SONG#Lyrics. I'm also deeply troubled by Wesley's comments on CT Cooper's talk last month: he concluded from some "profiling" methods that Rebecca's probably a minor, which leads to this tasteful quote: "It is becoming well-known these days that females under a certain age start to behave nastily and will go to any extreme to cause distress to people who "target" them". Beyond the underlying sexism that our friends over at the WP:GGTF will no doubt appreciate, I think this form of thinking goes 100% against WP:AGF and drives many editors away from his area of expertise/control around the Eurovision project, if not from Wikipedia altogether. For these reasons, I would ask uninvolved administrators to warn Wesley Mouse that such an attitude will lead to sanctions. 82.236.1.237 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly why has 82.236.1.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) poked their nose in something that they have no involvement in or not even connected with? And secondly, the comments at CT Cooper's talk page were in an observational context, so why twist such remarks out of context, when you have no clue in what context they were being made. Thirdly, the spirit of WP:BITE, means not to bite newcomer's; Rebecca isn't a newcomer; she's been a registered user for almost a year, and should at least have a basic knowledge of what Wikipedia is all about, including its rules, policies, and guidelines. If content is added without citations, then it may be challenged by adding {{cn}} or removing the content. On a few occasions, I would add sources myself, only because I had recently read such a source connected to content that had not been sourced. When adding new content to an article, the onus on citing their content with verified and reliable sources, is really on the editor who adds the content - not on other editor's to follow behind with a dustpan and brush sweeping up the crumbs left behind. And that attitude to strongly urge admins to ban me is unacceptable, as you do not know me, nor know the full in's and out's of the entire conversations or situations that involved other editor's and not yourself. Wes Mouse 12:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer your points in order:

• When you come to ANI, you're looking for uninvolved editors. I think my opinion (or any other uninvolved editor's) is valuable precisely because I have no prior involvement, and the principle of this encyclopedia is that can anyone can poke their nose as long as it is constructive and leads to improved articles.
• Secondly, I read the whole discussion, and I don't think the context (Rebecca's sometimes clumsy editing) excuses your assumptions and sweeping statements about "females under a certain age". I stand by my point: by repeatedly reverting her and warning her for policy violations when such violations actually don't exist (both WP:SONG#Lyrics and WP:DABSONG do not say what you thought they did), you have impeded addition of worthwhile content to the encyclopedia and driven her to frustration and resentment, emotions that I can fully understand.
• Third, except in BLP cases, you never have to remove unsourced content, especially when it appears uncontroversial and can be sourced by a 30-second Google/Youtube search, as in the case of the music videos.
• Finally, I in no way want you to be banned. I would like you to be warned for your specific behaviour in that case, so that you can improve your interactions with other editors. I know you do a great job around the Eurovision project, but it should not give you a free pass to bully others. We all have shortcomings, and the collaborative nature of Wikipedia allows the community to help us be more conscious and overcome them. 176.182.46.248 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (different IP, same person as above)

And I'll clarify further to your points in order:

• People come to ANI for uninvolved admins to intervene; and for any other "uninvolved" editors who may have had dealings with the user's concerned to pass comments if necessary.
• To say "repeatedly reverting" is over-the-top. For crying out loud, both Rebecca and myself, along with 76 other members of WP:ESC edit the same genre of articles, most of us will have most, if not all, on our watchlist. The fact that I am first to act cannot be see as "repeatedly reverting", just the fact that I'm more active and one-the-ball. Other user's have "repeatedly reverted" her actions, yet I don't see them being accused in the same manner that I am being done so. And my comment regarding females of a certain age is not sexist, nor your so-called view-point that you stand by. The issue alone has been and still is being covered in the media, and I am probably not the first Wikiepdian or living person to have come across issues of that nature. As I said at the time, that it is becoming a well-known factor these days - that isn't being sexist, just stating an opinion based on the nature of current day things. I have a niece of young age, and even she has behaved in similar ways with other people - so fact is evident. However, I'm not downgrading people just because they chose to do something in that manner, I merely comment on what I have read and witnessed. I am entitled to assert my opinion. That is why we have freedom of speech. Wes Mouse 14:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Project Eurovision pride's itself on making sure all content is sourced and verified. One only needs to read the fifth object for WP:ESC to see that sourcing is vital - purely because there are a lot of fan-made websites that report on Eurovision content, most of which is unreliable. That is why for Eurovision-related content, the project's members prefer that all' content be sourced, so that we are portraying across near-accurate details in an encyclopaedic manner. For example, Rebecca has on numerous occasions changed the date of birth on BLP's but not provided citation to verify these changes. Rebecca has been challenged several times by Jjj1238 over this, and the pair of them have got into heated arguements over it - some via edit summary comments, and one on Rebecca's talk page in which she was very uncivil towards Jjj1238. And if it is so "quick and simple" to find a source on Google/YouTube, then it would be just as quick for whoever adds content to add the citation too. After all they will have viewed the source in the first place, in order to have knowledge of what new material to add to an article. To half-do the job is bone-idleness. To put it more bluntly, we don't go for a shit and expect someone else to wipe our backsides for use once we've finished - we'd do the job ourself.
• And I do not need to be warned for anything. My interactions are perfectly normal. I don't beat around the bush, mince my words, or tip-toe around just to get a point across. I call a spade, a spade. There are Wikipedian's that use a more harsher tone than I have used, yet it is perfectly acceptable for them, yet not acceptable for me? If you knew me, and knew what I have been through, then you'd understand why I don't beat about the bush and say things as they are. Wouldn't you prefer someone spoke to you with utmost honesty, rather than bubblewrap their comments? Because I prefer honesty, regardless of whether what a person has to say may be harsh or hurtful. Most people on here know about the loss of my mother, the abusive and physical attacks received from my now ex-partner. All that life-experience has caused me to gain a backbone and toughen up.

Like I also pointed out, some of Rebecca's edits have been excellent and show potential of her being an outstanding contributor. However, some have been repeated errors, errors which she has been told time and time again not to do, yet she still does them. I'll happily cut her some slack, but someone needs to also tell her that she seriously needs to pay attention to what other's say, respond to people when they make a comment and/or question. I know people say that ignorance is bliss, but purposely ignoring user's is damn-right rude. Wes Mouse 14:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots of IP Vandalism at Hannah Arendt because of German Google doodle

There is a lot of IP Vandalism at Hannah Arendt because it's today's German Google doodle. Please watch or maybe it should be protected against IP editing for a day. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 24 hours. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User forcing edits though

Editor User:86.155.189.126 keeps re-adding gamecruft to this[97] article despite being told that it's against WP:GAMECRUFT. It doesn't seem like they read edit summaries. Eik Corell (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no attempt to explain on the IP's talk page in plain English - just several reverts with some alphabet soup in the edit summaries, and then a report to ANI. I agree the content is inappropriate (and I've reverted too), but you should try talking to people before asking for admin intervention. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now offered an explanation at the IP talk page. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If it continues, maybe you can take it to WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Just created an entry there. Eik Corell (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, don't forget that edit-summaries are NOT intended as a means to communicate with someone - they merely describe the edit. Communication takes place on Talkpages. If someone says "they don't read edit-summaries" that that's your fault, not theirs the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkpages are preferred for further discussion if necessary, but an edit summary should be enough in many cases. If someone isn't reading the edit summary to see why something they did was reverted, then they aren't using the system as it's set up. Now, understanding what is said in the summary is a different matter -- and that's another reason we go to talk. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Most newcomers don't even know what an edit summary is, never mind where to look for one. They read that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so they do, then they find their changes are gone, and they have no idea why -- and they haven't the faintest idea of any of the arcane policy and procedure details that experienced editors know about. That's why an edit summary is never the place to discuss something, especially not problematic edits - if a newcomer makes repeated errors, the correct place is always their talk page, which at least gives them a notification that there is something they need to read. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Legal threat at the BLP noticeboard.[98] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It qualifies, but he might have a point, as someone is speculating at Talk:Joe Vitale (ice hockey) as to whether he might be related to mob figures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - I deleted the contentious question from the talk page - it was 2 years old and unanswered, I hope that wasn't inappropriate of me. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I was debating whether to reply to the question or just delete it; it's probably better in the long run to just delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A question like that is better researched offline, and to only bring it up (if at all) if there is irrefutable evidence. Even then, it's not fair to label an innocent party as being related to a mob boss, unless that fact is already well-known. As to the one making the legal threat, an admin could advise him that in future he should pursue a more appropriate tone of voice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dawn Bard has already left a template note at the IP's talk page. De728631 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Fearofreprisal again...

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.

---

Someone wanna indef this guy? He gets a TBAN[99] on the historicity of Jesus, makes about 3 edits in basically unrelated areas, then after less than a week posts[100] an request for arbitration on the historicity of Jesus article, repeating the same personal attacks and non sequitur arguments that got him banned in the first place. He insisted just before his ban that I was a "Christian apologist" (I don't blame him for not knowing my actual theological convictions, but given my own history of arguing with Christians on here when they try to push an agenda, it was highly offensive), and continues to do the same to other users. He made an attack page that was all but speedied under the circumstances. It also appears to be a near-certainty that he was the one who posted the off-site canvassing that led to the article completely exploding just as we had finally reached a reasonable consensus. I'm not going to specifically notify him other than the above WP:PING, since his TBAN technically forbids him from responding here, or on his talk page, and posting on his talk page about this seems like it would be poking the weasel. If he wants to appeal the ban on his talk page after getting blocked he can do that, but frankly I think self-confessed POV-pushing sockpuppets should be blocked on-site and never unblocked until they disclose their main account's username.

(Sorry if Fearofreprisal already has done this -- but if that's the case then why wasn't the sock account already blocked.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn I hadn't noticed TParis's addition of an "except for ArbCom" clause to the TBAN, so my initial request is all but moot. It's indisputably the case that his earlier creation of a user subpage attacking a select group of other contributors was in violation, and his use of a sock account (that appears to have initially been created years ago with a good justification) just to troll a page by propping up a fringe conspiracy theory, as well as the continued personal attacks ("X disagrees with me, therefore X must not only be a Christian, but a Christian apologist" -- note that in roughly half the cases X isn't even Christian), probably atill merit a site ban, but we'll see how arbitration works out first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that Fearofreprisal (FOR) created the account because of his/her fears of reprisal, hence the name. This was presumably because the editor intended from the start to make edits that might have negative consequences for the account. Another editor has indicated that FOR already has another account, though as far as I know it has not been disclosed (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Jeppiz). If FOR were to be indeffed would this, in practice, make the other account a sockpuppet? Paul B (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As a statement by me was mentioned, I provide the diff on which I based it [101].Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As for whether FoR's Arbcom filing constituted a breach of his topic ban: unfortunately, the original statement of the topic ban [102], formulated by TParis, did include an explicit exception "to appeal this topic ban or to seek Arbitration". If that hadn't been the case, I would have blocked him already. Incidentally, I think it was a very poor decision on TParis' part: when we topic-ban somebody because his involvement in a field of conflict has been persistently unhelpful, then the last thing we should invite him to do is to seek a way of escalating the conflict further by continuing to fight on yet another, even more high-profile level, such as Arbcom. Other than appealing his own ban (which he explicitly said was not what the Arbcom filing was), and except for defending himself if challenged by others, such a user should have no business getting involved in further dispute processes at all. But given the poor wording of the ban decision, unfortunately we can't hold this against him now. The thing about potential sockpuppeting is a different matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, he said that it was because of fear of reprisal from Joe Arpaio, which checks out with his edit history. I completely sympathize with hiding one's identity from Joe Arpaio, but if one does not want their actions on a page like Talk:Historicity of Jesus associated with their main account, they should not make those edits. If unmerited/unevidenced/attacking requests come up again, it may be worthwhile to extend the topic ban to include seeking arbitration on Historicity of Jesus, on the grounds of WP:POINT. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal's request that the ArbCom impose discretionary sanctions on Historicity of Jesus is the only reasonable edit that I have seen from Fearofreprisal. Discretionary sanctions are needed as a way of controlling disruptive editors, such as FOR, on that article and related articles. Based on the wording of the topic ban, his Request for Arbitration was not a violation of the ban (and actually was reasonable). There seems to be a lot of idle discussion of whether this editor is a sockpuppet, but there is a procedure for dealing with sockpuppets. Can we close this ANI thread while any sockpuppet investigations and the Request for Arbitration run their course? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "idle discussion". The issue was raised by me as a question about the consequences for the other account should FoR be indeffed. As far as I know the other account is not currently a sockpuppet as such, since its edits do not - as far as we know - overlap with those of FoR. Ian is correct about FoR's declared motivation: see User_talk:Fearofreprisal#Topic_ban. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, back in February 8, 2013, I filed an SPI on FearofReprisal, as his behavior matched not 1, but at least 4 other id's.

I'd love to share the link with you, but the case was not only not investigated, but it was rev'deled by a clerk (now a checkuser ). SO yes, I agree FearofReprisal is socking. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As I understand the topic ban, FOR had every right to file the request. However, FOR also made a very pointy table at his own page over all the main editors at Historicity of Jesus and that was certainly a breach of the topic ban. An admin deleted the table [103].Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that, based on the wording of the topic-ban, FOR had a right to file the RfAR. He didn't have a right to compile the table, but he may not have understood that the topic-ban applied in user space as well as in other spaces. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it depends on how the arbs handle the case filing. If they close it as a frivolous filing, a case could be made for a site ban. However, they appear to be taking the proposal to implement discretionary sanctions seriously. I'm leaning against a site ban, unless a persuasive case can be made that filing for arbitration was intended to be an escalation of the previous dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 01:18, 14 October 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:Jimbo Wales

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

---

A while back, User:Jimbo Wales banned User:Eric Corbett from his talk page after a number of disagreements. However, in recent times he has been taking advantage of this ban to launch an number of attacks against this editor, the latest of which, today, can be seen here. In normal circumstances, when an editor bars another from their talkpage, it is generally assumed that they do not want to interact with them, and that is usually the purpose of such a ban. However, it is clear in this case that User:Jimbo Wales intends to continue to be incivil to this editor who, of course, has no right of reply. This is quite ironic (and indeed, hypocritical) given that User:Jimbo Wales appears to be criticising this editor for reasons of their supposed incivility. Please note; on October 3, User:Jimbo Wales was warned about this behaviour by another administrator; see [104]. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

• A two-way interaction ban be enacted between these two editors which includes mentioning each other on their talk pages.
• Support as nominator. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per nom, and per this diff, in which Wales was earlier warned about this type of behavior. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, I hereby lift the ban on him editing my talk page for the sole purpose of responding to my opinion that his long track record of abuse of other editors should result in a ban. I very strongly dispute the absurd accusation that offering my opinion on the need to have a civil environment in Wikipedia amounts, in itself, to incivility. A civil, loving, and kind discussion of issues of abuse is both possible and desirable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• If you are going to do that, it would be helpful if you actually substantiated your numerous accusations with diffs, as Giano asked you to do recently. Eric is not the only editor whom you target in this manner and quite often you use phrases such as "some people should not be here" which are quite obviously references to Eric and a few others. It is the height of incivility, it really is. There is nothing loving or kind, either, about what you have been doing in this regard, Jimbo. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to supply diffs, but the ArbCom case is the best place to find them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You really can't have it all ways Mr Wales. Banning somebody then commenting critically with no right of reply was ok until you were called out on it. Saying he can edit now it suits your purposes is just not on. The diffs you are being asked for regard your allegation that he has driven away countless editors, nothing to do with the Arbcom case. J3Mrs (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per nom, and the fact that Eric is worth something around hare, Jimbo, not so much. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. Given the standing the community has given to Mr. Wales, it's indeed ironic that he would effectively gravedance on another user (something that is by its very nature uncivil and against what he claims to support). Intothatdarkness 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no gravedancing. It is time to have a serious discussion about whether abusive users like Eric should be allowed to continue their actions at great expense to quality editors of the encyclopedia. He is free to attempt to justify his behavior - but since he has had many opportunities to do so, I doubt that he will.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Jimbo, just by referring to Eric in a negative tone when he has no right of reply is wrong. Being civil to one another comes second to article development in my opinion. You really must practise what you preach. Cassianto^talk 19:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

He has a right of reply.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is utterly disingenuous. When you posted that claptrap above, he had no right of reply. You only rescinded your "ban" after you were brought here. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not on your page he didn't; you banned him. Cassianto^talk 19:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Only after this appeared here. Intothatdarkness 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, he could reply or complain anywhere else. But I haven't seen him complain, and I would be surprised if he did. It is my opinion that his behavior in the past towards many editors has been unacceptable. He is free to defend it here or on his talk page or - now - on my talk page if he likes. But to pretend that he has been somehow silenced is not really accurate. He's been given a rather absurd degree of latitude.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Opt to close with no action based on Jimbo's redaction of said topic ban given this WP:ANI post. Makes the nomination moot, in any case. No longer necessary to have an interaction ban between the two in any context, one way or two way. Tutelary (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:JimboWalesIsGodOnWikipedia (just kidding about the reason :) ). Yes he's banned Eric from his page, which is his right, that doesn't stop Eric from replying to Jimbo, just not on his talk page. Just like, if Jimbo banned me from his talkpage and he said stuff about me, I could reply anywhere else (appropriately, of course ) except his talk page. Oppose and shut this down as unecessary KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, this must be a joke. JW is entirely within his right to comment about an editor in his own talk page just like EC comments on him in his TP (go take a look), either one can use its own TP to respond if they so feel like. The diff presented as evidence of an "attack" is ridiculous, it is nothing more than the opinion of an editor. WP:CIVIL does not mean editors should be censored about discussing the behaviour of other editors. Gaba ^(talk) 20:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. User talk:Jimbo Wales is much more of a community discussion board then a user talk page. The fact that so many people raise issues about Eric there (and numerous other things) means it is unfair to silence Jimbo on the topic. A much better solution would be to completely ban all mention of Eric on the page in question. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Jimbo's comment: "[Eric Corbett has] been given a rather absurd degree of latitude". [Redacted] and for whatever reason he has enough "followers" that he seems to be ban proof, which is a very bad thing for Wikipedia. I will never understand why he is so respected. He is [redacted] and a proud opponent of basic civility. No one editor is ever worth this much drama. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Good grief. Are you seriously talking about imposing an interaction ban on Jimbo?? Shouldn't we try to handle this privately and on an informal basis. I can only imagine how this will play in the newspapers. I would think a certain measure of sensitivity is required in these circumstances. Could Eric not be persuaded to spend time on another talk page, and could we not ask Jimbo not to refer to Eric directly? This is a potential public relations nightmare. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? Jimbo is not some sort of messiah and should be treated like anyone else. Cassianto^talk 19:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course I should. And opining that a user with a long track record of abuse of others should be banned is quite normal and acceptable. If we cannot have an open discussion about abuse, we are lost.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though that editor is the creater of many excellent articles? The "abuse" as you term it, is the result of a user coming to Eric's page or an article his writing, to simply poke the bear. Half of Eric's trolls wouldn't know a featured article if it came up and slapped them on the face. Cassianto^talk 20:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, perhaps you should be speaking in terms of hypotheticals and not in terms of specific named individuals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes that is true. But sometimes a specific example is worthwhile to encourage a vigorous and honest debate. Those who really think that content contributions justify abuse need to defend specific abuse.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. And I believe that it is important that the "founder" and public face of WP be seen as playing by the same rules aas everyone else, as you acknowledged above. Right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly not the messiah, Cassianto, but he is the "founder" and the public face of Wikipedia. I'm all in favor of encouraging everyone to play nice and by the rules, but I am not in favor of giving Wikipedia a black eye in public. Please consider carefully. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never directly been involved with Jimbo and I respect him for the whole Wikipedia concept, but I disagree with his civility ideas and his obsession with Eric. Just because he founded the project, doesn't mean he can go about and flout the rules; Jimbo himself agrees with this above. Cassianto^talk 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Would appreciate diffs on this and precedent situations - i.e. after regular posts on editor (1)'s Talk page, editor (2) is banned from editor (1)'s Talk page. Later other editors regularly raise editor (2) on editor (1)'s Talk page and editor (1) sometimes comments, then ANI... AnonNep (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• I am not sure if an interaction ban is the best way forward. I warned Jimbo a week ago that he must not continue issuing insults against a respected user who is forbidden to reply to them, and without providing any evidence. If he has continued this deeply uncivil behaviour and shown no sign of understanding what is wrong with this, I'd be asking for a block at this stage. That this recent incivility is ostensibly in support of greater civility is an irony which is not lost on me. --John (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• This ought to be a public relations nightmare, not hidden away. Jimbo is unfit to be the public face of Wikipedia, and the more people who know that the better. Eric Corbett 20:06, 14 October 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.

Odd conflict at Listen (David Guetta album)

There is a dispute I'm not quite sure how to describe at Listen (David Guetta album), specifically its track list section. I came across the page in reverting an unexplained section blanking from an IP editor, who later claimed to represent Warner Music and who said (to me here and on the article talk page) that the track listing is unreleased and that the Wikipedia version is incorrect. I first re-blanked the section, but when I was reverted I did not contest that, since there was sourced information there that I had erroneously deleted. Later, when I took a closer look at the iTunes sources provided (which of course I should have done immediately, that was my mistake) I noticed that only a small portion of the tracks on the Wikipedia page were actually listed there. I trimmed the track listing to include only what I saw in the sources, but since then it seems to have become an edit war involving quite a few editors (most of them IP editors; none of them have violated 3RR to my knowledge). I'm completely at a loss as to what I should do to help resolve this, if anything. Help is appreciated. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• TL;DR Big multi-sided edit war over whether or not to include a full track listing (that as far as I can tell is not given in the sources provided), made worse by me being careless, no idea what to do. Also, for the record, I am not notifying anyone regarding this post since I can't even say who I'd consider "involved" enough to notify. I would appreciate if someone else would take a look at that. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Edit Prevention: Impersonation of an Admin by technopat

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

---

In summary, @75.162.179.246: any editor, admin or otherwise, may warn another for policy violations, edit warring, disruption, personal attacks etc. Admins will take those warnings into consideration when using their mops. @Technopat: is advised that edit warring over warnings is a bad idea. To the IP,, "they" and "them" can be used in the neutral genderless singular form as well. Blackmane (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)}}

Non-admin technopat (talk) seems to think you've given him/her some kind of "admin." privileges, even though there's a place on his/her talk page about admins that shows that he/she is not one. But she/he still thinks s/he can falsely accuse me of "vandalizing Wikipedia" by erasing her/his own so-called "warning" from my own talk page. I've been told by more than one admin. that erasing stuff from--even emptying--your own talk page is acceptable. So you need to stop this guy from acting all "admin" when he/she 1. isn't one, and 2. doesn't even know the right things to warn about in the first place.

I've written technopat up on his or her own talk page for this behavior:

user talk:Technopat#You're not an admin. 75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Any editor can leave a warning on your talk page over problems with your editing. The only difference between an admin and a regular editor is that an admin has been trusted with additional tools. The only thing Technopat shouldn't have done was restore the warning after you deleted it. But that isn't actionable because it hasn't reached the level of an edit war. —Farix (t | c) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the worst report ever to land at ANI. Technopat has done nothing wrong, any user can leave a warning. In response to that one warning, the IP has has done eleven edits to Technopat's talk page, six edits to WP:EF to complain about it and now ANI. All of them with absolutely no reason. The IP may be in good faith, but Ignorantia juris non excusat disruption of this kind. Give the OP a 24h block for harassment of Techopat to take some time to cool down.Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Jeppy, t'pat DID do some wrong things. See below: 75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I type slowly, so much of this has been said. However, Technopat was not acting as/impersonating an admin; any editor can leave warning templates. As I see it:

• You've been edit warring with 3 other editors at Acronym. Don't do that.
• You called another editor an idiot. Don't do that.
• Technopat warned you about it. Anyone can do that.
• You blanked the warning. You can do that.
• Technopat reverted your blanking. He shouldn't have done that.
• Technopat warned you for the blanking. He shouldn't have done that.
• You have blitzed his talk page and Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports multiple times. Don't do that.

So this is solved by (a) you not calling other editors names, (b) reminding Technopat people can blank notices on their talk pages, (c) you blanking your talk page if you want to, (d) you leaving Technopat's talk page alone, and (e) politely discussing the issue at the article on Talk:Acronym. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We really need to have imposed 2 new policies, then: 1. that admins are all clearly identified (no "unmarked police cars"), and that 2. only admin-badged writers can give (even have access to--so you'd have to change the way the templates are accessed) any kind of official (or official-looking) warning.

That's because it looks like the artificial "power" that some experienced NON-admin writers seem to think they have gets to their heads! I really don't like the idea of thinking I'm having to bend under the pressure of someone who, at first, looks like an admin, only to later discover that they're just some bossy schmuck with no authority!

How would you like to be pulled over by dome dimwit with fake cop lights on their car, only to then find out that they have NO police authority? I don't know *anyone* who would tolerate that. EXACTLY my point!

The only kind of warning I want from a non-admin is one that carries no official markers of any kind, but could only be something like "If you keep doing this, then I might report you," to which I could then reply with the same little bit of force, "If you do that again, then I'll report *you.*"

• "You're not the boss of me!"

I'm still hoping someone will answer me about why technopat gets a pass for warring back, even if he technically "didn't break the 3RR"(/24H) rule! Why?

75.162.179.246 (talk)

No, that's the beauty of the community: there's no hierarchy. Every member in the community has the responsibility to teach and/or warn others when their behaviour is going outside community boundaries. Every member of the community likewise has the responsibility to respond to those warnings appropriately. You agreed to it when you arrived the panda ₯’ 10:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And technopat did NOT "get a pass" - they're now fully aware, and they know that action can be taken in the future should it recur. the panda ₯’ 10:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I've been asked to "admit" my error in restoring the warning I posted for the two insulting edit summaries left at the article where the user was edit-warring with several other users ([105] & [106]). Fine, I'll admit it's my error. Hope that makes everyone else happy, 'cos I'm left with the unpleasant feeling that while some folks can get to do whatever they like in terms of disruptive editing, including repeatedly restoring content that is plain wrong (this is an encyclopedia) and escalating matters by maligning and insulting users, even at this very ANI, others have to turn a blind eye and simply get on with maintenance. On top of which I been warned that "they know that action can be taken in the future should it recur". Regards, --Technopat (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, Panda? Well then why wasn't an edit-warring warning given to him/her (not "them," since that's a plural form--well, someone else suggested just "him" as if they already knew this was a guy) at the same time as I got one? If supposed "edit-warring" is only accused of to the *first* person who changes something repeatedly, but not to the one who edit-wars it back repeatedly, then what's the criteria for determining that only the guy with the *new* changes should be thrown the "edit-warring" warning? Just because the old version had been sitting there longer? Or just because there was a consensus for the old way but not the new way? Then why do we even *have* public editability if every older version is the one with the supposed "consensus" and it "should not be touched," and if it is touched repeatedly in a new way, then only *that* person gets the "warring" warning but the person assuming that the "only right version" is the old one does *not* get the same warning for warring it *back*?

75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring case you brought against them was dismissed because they did not violate 3RR. The solution to editing disputes when changing things like you did in Acronym is to solve them on the talk page of the article. Not act the way you have so far including filing this frivolous ANI. - SantiLak (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so now breaking 3RR is suddenly "the only kind of edit-warring"? What about the kind of edit-warring that doesn't break 3RR, which this page actually includes?

PLUS, nobody has, as of yet, told me why technopat did not get the same general (non-3RR) edit-warring warning as I did. Why is that? And then how was *my* report so "frivolous" if you're not considering technopat's as that way (remember, you can still be edit-warring without breaking 3RR)?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 13:37, 15 October 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.

Quick deletion request

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

---

Can someone delete User:Fvaok/common.js? I don't have javascript editing rights so I cannot list the page for speedy deletion under the criteria that the author is indefinitely blocked as an attack account aimed at Koavf, the first million-edit Wikipedian. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:51, 15 October 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.

Links to some social network pages not being displayed?

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 edited Simone Biles and as part of that added [[Twitter]] to the text. When I preview or save the links to [[Twitter]] and [[Facebook]] they are not displaying. Adding pipes did not help.

Here's a test of <Twitter> and <Facebook>. I see <> and not the links between the angle brackets. Also, I first bracketed the tests with xx and discovered that the second "x" was not being displayed. Wikilinks to other articles are working fine. It does not seem to be a CSS issue. I copy/pasted the test text and the HTML it is "a test of &lt;&gt; and &lt;&gt;" implying a server side issue.

I'm using WP:ANI as I don't know of a better forum for announcing a potential system-wide issue that can cause confusion for some editors. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's working fine for me. Maybe a technical issue with your browser? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Some sort of browser hijack maybe? --NE2 05:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. It works fine in IE on this machine. I closed down Firefox, restart, and when I view this thread I saw the Twitter/Facebook links for a little under a second. They then were removed and I'm seeing <>. That implies client side JavaScript at work. I'll debug that for a bit and post the results here. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(post-close explanation of root cause) I use Adblock Plus on Firefox along with Fanboy's Social Blocking List. That list includes two rules, ##a[title="Facebook"] and ##a[title="Twitter"]. I don't know if there was a recent update to the list or I failed to notice that some text has been missing from Wikipedia and other sites. I checked the list of rules related to link titles and most of them are for phrases such as "Become a Fan on Facebook!", "Follow us on LinkedIn", etc. The rules will block the following social media mentions when used as a single word in the "title" tag: "Facebook", "Google+", "LinkedIn", "Pinterest", "Twitter", and "Youtube". --Marc Kupper|talk 06:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(another post-close comment) I was seeing this issue too, but it disappeared after I updated my Adblock Plus filter list. You can do this from the "Filter preferences" option on the Adblock Plus menu in Firefox (and probably other browsers too). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Stradivarius. Shortly after I figured out the issue I reported it on the Adblock Plus forums. They immediately fixed the filter rule lines I had reported the issue with. The lines used to look like

linkedin.com,mail.google.com#@#a[title="LinkedIn"]

and now have

linkedin.com,mail.google.com,wikipedia.org#@#a[title="LinkedIn"]

with the change now disabling that rule for the wikipedia.org sites. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:09, 15 October 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.

Topic ban on page moves for Hemant Dabral

Considering his unwillingness to discuss any edits, and lack of understanding of page moves, this user has left me with no other option than to seek topic ban on page moves.

He is not willing to make any discussions about the controversial page moves he is doing. He won't even talk about normal page edits. At least 30 of his page moves had been reverted.

Here are some examples of his page moves:-

• Bhagat Singh Koshyari moved to B. S. Koshyari — Despite there are only 800 mentions of B. S. Koshyari and over 5.5 million mentions of Bhagat Singh Koshyari.
• Meena Rana moved to Mina Rana — Despite there are only 10k mentions of Mina Rana and over 1 million mentions of Meena Rana. Her name is indeed Meena Rana and "Mina Rana" is some music artist.
• Anti-India sentiment moved to Indophobia — There are only 8,000 mentions of Indophobia but 140,000 mentions of Anti-India sentiment. Indomania is a popular term though, but that's about admiration.
• Surjit Singh Barnala moved to S.S. Barnala — But he is actually known as Surjit Singh Barnala.
• Narendranagar moved to Narendra Nagar — Although Narendranagar is 100 times more common.
• AIIMS, New Delhi moved to All India Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi — Let's put this way, no one knows what is All India Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi, at least 99 out of 100 people don't know! Just like no one knows what is Dalsey, Hillblom and Lynn (DHL) We have to use common name.
• National Institute of Technology, Durgapur moved to National Institute of Technology Durgapur — Removal of comma, Durgapur is a location.
• Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha moved to Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha — Despite the name of this organization is Dakshina and not Dakshin.

I had warned him,[107] [108] he called me a cyber bully and asked that I should not post on his talk page.[109] Surprisingly he would come up today for telling me that Haha dude don't talk like a child.[110] Now he has started page move war.[111] Pretty much, we can consider that he's going to revert to his preferred page titles on every other page and refrain from any type of discussion about the page moves. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wee Curry Monster's topic ban lifting

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned from editing articles related to the Falkland Islands on May 2013 for "making discussion to reach a consensus almost impossible"[112] In that period of time, work on the main article began to flow again, eventually leading to a successful FA drive, a status that had been pursued for years. To see that period of trouble-free collaboration, see these edits.

6 months later, Wee Curry Monster appealed his topic ban[113], agreeing "to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics". As a result, the ban was lifted.

Right away, several new articles were created: Esteban Mestivier, Antonina Roxa, José María Pinedo. However, shortly after these efforts were concluded behavior problems started to arise again, reaching its climax in the past few weeks.

Wee Curry Monster has at least three times broken his 1RR condition for ban lifting:

• Top Gear controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revert 1: [114] 21:27, 10 October 2014

Revert 2: [115] 21:40, 10 October 2014

• Ian Gow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion at ANI: [116]

Discussion at talk page: [117]

WCM's uncivil summaries/edits were conveniently cleaned-up, so we can't really see them: [118]

The proof of the 1RR violation can be extracted from the following conversation: [119][120][121][122]

• Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revert 1: [123] 20:00, 11 April 2014

Revert 2: [124] 21:34, 11 April 2014

As I anticipated in the topic ban lifting, he continues to push for the self-published source Getting it Right by Pascoe & Pepper in his arguments,[125][126] while at the same time admitting that self-published sources are not reliable.[127] At this point, he doesn't really use this source in articles, but he uses it to back dubious theories at talk page, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE of the normal consensus building process.

Wee Curry Monster excels at article creation, but as a former British soldier his WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior prevents him from editing collaboratively on nationalistic subjects. --Langus (t) 08:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at this: WCM has clearly not violated 1RR at Ian Gow - he made one revert in November 2013 and one in May 2014 (page edit history). He has reverted more than once on the Top Gear controversies article, but it's clear from the talk page that the editor he reverted is in a minority of one as far as the opinion on their additions go. He also did revert more than once on the Falkland Islands article, but that was nothing more than a spelling issue - hardly anything controversial. As the latter was in April, I'm wondering why it's being raised now. Number 57 08:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"As a former British soldier his WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior..." - did I read that correctly? What on earth does his status as a former British solider have to do with it? StAnselm (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Number57, given the admin deletion involved in the Ian Gow incident I was under the impression that the article history isn't really showing the whole picture, specially since editors who were involved at the time noted that there was an edit war and that WCM broke its engagement. (Please do follow the links [128][129]). On the Top Gear article, I don't know if I'm following you correctly... are you saying that what the other user was doing was WP:VANDALISM? Because that's one of the few exceptions of WP:3RR.

Regarding the Falklands revert, I disagree on it being uncontroversial as I remind how it sparked this comment from the reverted editor, who was there helping us reaching FA. Revertions tend to feel like a slap in the face, specially when they come with 30 minutes in between. I'm raising it now because at the time I thought it would be fair to give WCM the chance to prove he had change, or even to do so in the following months.

StAnselm I take that back, I am generalizing. But WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior is still there. In the past few weeks WCM has been an obstacle in reaching consensus through normal discussion of sources. --Langus (t) 15:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about re the Gow article. The discussions are about incivility on the talk page (largely an IP using the c word). There are no deleted revisions of the Gow article that I can see as an admin. Also, please ping me if you respond to me again - I can't keep track of various discussions all over the place. Cheers, Number 57 21:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party I've reviewed Langus-TxT's concerns regarding Wee Curry Monster and they seem to be solidly founded. An unnecessary battlefield mentality is at play that does not belong on WP. Wikipedia should not be about trying to get in the last word or advance a particular worldview, while negating others, but that seems to be exactly what is occurring. It seems like offering Wee Curry Monster an opportunity to pursue other topic interests for an additional period of six months would be beneficial both to him and to WP. DocumentError (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Response

I am in two minds about responding, I'm not sure this warrants any response. None of the edits referred to above are problematic and I have avoided making the mistakes that lead to the topic ban in the first place. I would note, however, this is not the first time Langus-TxT has presented diffs in a misleading way seeking that sanctions are placed upon me.

1. Ian Gow is completely unrelated to the topic ban but I didn't violate 1RR.
2. Top Gear controversies was a clear WP:BLP issue but the option I chose was not to edit war but alert the issue of WP:OR and WP:SYN at WP:NORN [130], per WP:BRD I started the talk page discussion. John can confirm the WP:BLP issue.
3. Falkland Islands [131] and [132] are both minor corrections to grammar. They were done in collaboration with editors working toward achieving FA status. Really after nearly a year of editing the best example he can find of a 1RR violation is collaboration to improve the article to FA status.

The only person who has been edit warring on Latin American topics recently is Langus-TxT on both David Jewett and Juan Manuel de Rosas.

Langus is one of a group of three editors who at one time were haunting my every edit on Falklands topics, constantly accusing me of misconduct. I acknowledge my mistake was to vociferously defend myself against their attacks, since this gives the appearance of a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and I acknowelged it deterred others from commenting. I haven't repeated that mistake (I just ignore them) but have to note this is not the first time Langus-TxT has made a provocative reference to my service in the British Army.

WP:SPS does allow an exemption for recognised experts but I haven't proposed an edit using Pepper & Pascoe as a source, since I know Langus-TxT will revert on sight mention of their name. The comments referred to are A) helping another editor find information, B) a response to Langus falsely claiming only one historian had commented on a particular issue and finally C) removal of a distinctly unreliable source http://www.malvinense.com.ar/ (feel free to check it out).

I don't enjoy the drama boards, currently my plan as discussed with my mentor Nick-D was to take a break and I have discussed with another editor offline moving to a different topic area. I'll leave to others to judge whether there should be a WP:BOOMERANG to go with this frivolous complaint. WCM_email 12:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And how on earth would Pepper & Pascoe be recognized experts if they never published anything? The comments were made in the context of A) determining whether or not Vernet sought permission from both Britain and the United Provinces and B) determining whether or not David Jewett had orders to claim the Islands in 1820. Hardly the innocent reasons WCM claims. Here are the full conversations: [133][134] --Langus (t) 15:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As noted by WCM above, I've recently suggested that they take a break from either Wikipedia or Argentina-related topics, which I think remains a good idea given that they seem to keep getting involved in heated disputes at the moment. Regarding this report, it seems rather overblown and hard to take seriously as a result. WCM clearly reverted more than once in Top Gear controversies, which wasn't a good idea regardless of circumstances. The edits in the Falkland Islands article were very different, so I don't see how they'd be a 1RR violation (except in a technical sense). Moreover, these two edits were made 6 months ago, so it's silly to bring this up now and outright misleading to place this under a statement implying that the edits took place "in the past few weeks". Ian Gow is clearly out of the scope of the topic ban, and I can't see any sensible reason for it having been raised here (the topic ban is rather specific) especially as it's blindingly obvious from the article's history that WCM's reverts were 6 months apart! Taken together, these examples clearly don't illustrate a series of 1RR violations and two of the examples seem to have been provided in bad faith. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

“ "WCM; I concur that the topic ban was not imposed for incivility per-se. I have to agree that you violated the 1RR arrangement here though: the IP's behaviour wasn't helpful, and I note that they appear to have a seriously problematic history, but their edits weren't vandalism and you should have asked an admin to intervene or waited for other editors to respond". ”

Signed: Nick-D 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are your words Nick-D.[135] Maybe I should reciprocate you groundless accusation of bad faith and denounce that now you're just trying to help a personal friend of yours as WCM is.

Note also that it isn't my intention to imply that these edits are recent; I've put the date next to them! By "reaching its climax in the past few weeks" I'm referring mostly to WCM's behavior in the talk pages and articles he has cited (e.g. [136][137][138] and his recent idea of banning a whole bunch of sources without considering them in context). None of the 1RR violations involved me in any way. --Langus (t) 11:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(coming from Nick-D's talk page) Are you though, Langus? The majority of the space in your opening post is devoted to the alleged 1RR violations. In fact, you even conflate the two, I assume unintentionally: "... behavior problems started to arise again, reaching its climax in the past few weeks. [break, no transition] Wee Curry Monster has at least three times broken his 1RR condition for ban lifting ..." On reading that post, I saw no reason to assume that your primary goal was looking at talk page behavior.

Furthermore, you're quoting Nick-D from a 1RR violation on a different article, one you haven't even mentioned here, and one he doesn't talk about! What's the end goal here? What is this section really about? Very confused. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - the article I was referring to in that quote was Argentine Military Cemetery, where WCM went to two reverts in August. To present my comment as somehow contradicting what I said above is rather dubious: I think that WCM should take a break from this topic area, but it isn't because they're regularly breaking their 1RR restriction. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well now it makes much more sense... My bad; I apologize. As I said, I wasn't directly involved at the time and I'm really not sure how those deletions work, so I assumed there was something in the Ian Gow articles I couldn't see. Number_57 there's the explanation.

The ed17 talk page behavior is complex and requires A LOT more time from you than just looking at three 1RR breaches. When you have a behavior problem it doesn't contain itself to either talk pages or articles. The 1RR are the tip of the iceberg that's easily seen. --Langus (t) 16:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a mud-slinging exercise. Most of the evidence is several months old, and in the single case where it isn't, Curry Monster's reverts were not causing any problems - removing clearly inaccurate text that was later removed again (in much larger quantity) in an administrative action because it violated WP:BLP. I see no basis for the objections to behaviour on talk, other than that Langus disagrees with WCM on content. There is ultimately no need for admin action against Curry Monster here, and I suggest we close. Kahastok talk 17:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The best action to take here is to close, as suggested by Kahastok. Having taken the Falkland Islands article to featured status with the aid of several editors (chief of whom, during important steps, was WCM; which is why he is credited for it), disagreements within that article were a norm. I don't think any major editing conflict has happened since then (the discussions seem to have drifted to other articles).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Chesivoirzr regarding psychology articles or articles that include psychological perspectives

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.

---

Administrative help is needed concerning Chesivoirzr (talk · contribs). He or she keeps engaging in WP:Disruptive editing at psychology articles or at articles that include psychological perspectives, usually adding poor sources, asking questions in the text and/or engaging in other WP:Editorializing, as seen here, here, here and here. I can see that the editor means well, but his or her edits are usually bad additions, and psychology topics are a WP:Med aspect (an aspect that usually requires WP:MEDRS sourcing). Chesivoirzr has been warned a lot on his or her talk page (mostly by a bot, sure), but has yet to respond to the warnings or to those who have reverted him or her, which is why I didn't post anything to the Chesivoirzr talk page regarding Chesivoirzr's recent WP:Edit warring at the Erikson's stages of psychosocial development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. When a Wikipedia editor is editing disruptively like this, and is not responding on that matter, it seems that a WP:Block is the best route to take regarding that editor. A temporary one at first, so that the editor hopefully gets the point. But if someone here thinks that I or a different editor should first try explaining to Chesivoirzr what he or she is doing wrong, I don't mind. I will alert Chesivoirzr to this thread. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Since no one has yet to weigh in on this here at WP:ANI, and since if Chesivoirzr continues to edit psychology articles, or Wikipedia in general, I am not confident that this WP:Disruptive behavior will stop, I have alerted WP:Med to this section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MED. The diffs above show someone writing on-topic education-oriented questions. For example, s/he inserted "How do researchers learn to understand differences in intelligence, cognitive development, affect, motivation, self-regulation, self conflict, and the role of students in learning?" before the older sentence, "The field of educational psychology relies heavily on quantitative methods, including testing and measurement, to enhance educational activities related to instructional design, classroom management, and assessment, which serve to facilitate learning processes in various educational settings across the lifespan."

This isn't encyclopedic style. It's more like a lower-level textbook writing style. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the user was a teacher. But I don't think it really meets any of the usual criteria at WP:DE, and it certainly doesn't deserve being called vandalism, despite tripping ClueBot repeatedly.

Flyer, I think that someone ought to try talking to this brand-new editor. Before you started this, 100% of the messages on the new editor's talk page were templates, and your message might as well have been a template. Talk page formatting is confusing, and the lack of communication may be nothing more than a sign of not knowing what or whether to reply. (Nobody even suggested that a reply was possible, so it hardly seems fair to ding the user for not magically guessing that replies are possible or desirable.) Maybe an invitation to the Teahouse would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I see and deal with editors like Chesivoirzr all the time; I mean editors who continually edit disruptively (and, yes, Chesivoirzr's editing qualifies as WP:Disruptive editing), no matter how many messages they get, even the messages that a person (such as yourself) might consider "more human." Chesivoirzr already has a Welcome template on his or her talk page; I see that template as very human-like. And I believe that the message I left on Chesivoirzr's talk page about this thread was human enough for Chesivoirzr to get the point. If Chesivoirzr continues to edit disruptively after that, and/or after I leave another message on his or her talk page about their inappropriate editing, then I really don't see any rational defense of Chesivoirzr's behavior. I barely see a good defense for Chesivoirzr's behavior now, given the Welcome template on Chesivoirzr's talk page, and that a lot of new editors understand that a person is talking to them when reverting them and telling them to stop. A lot of new editors figure out how to reply soon enough (even though they usually do not initially sign their usernames). The problems with Chesivoirzr's editing has been addressed in this thread, and, if Chesivoirzr is not able to grasp that, then I don't see how I or anyone else can help Chesivoirzr become a better Wikipedia editor, aside from meeting with Chesivoirzr in person and explaining Wikipedia ways to him or her. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog has helped out on this matter in a way that I very much appreciate. Flyer22 (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks flyer! i agree with WAID. nobody has tried to have a discussion with this editor. I very much see flyer22's point as well - there are editors who refuse to talk, and if he/she doesn't respond to our efforts to open discussion, but continues editing, it probably will take a block to get him or her to pay attention to the importance of discussion. Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

and we have a very apologetic response from this editor. this thread can probably be closed. hopefully another won't have to be opened. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting interaction ban with Hijiri88

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:Hijiri88 has continuallly attacked and harassed me.

• He recently started a section here on ANI requesting that I be indefinitely banned. [139], based upon my having filed a request for arbitration.[140]. Hijiri88 is not a party to the arbitration request. This appears to be an attempt to do an end-around run on ArbCom.
• He nominated a page in my userspace for deletion. This page contained statistical data supporting the request for abitration.
  • He did not sign and date his nomination of the page at [141]
  • He did not notify me of the nomination, as required by [142]. As a result, there was no discussion, and I discovered the deletion only by accident, after it happened.
  • The deletion has interfered with the arbitration process.

These interactions have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. They are simple harassment. While Hijiri88 has attacked and harassed me in a number of other posts, these two incidents should be sufficient evidence to show that he should be banned from interacting with me, to prevent future incidents, and further interference with the arbitration process. I do not believe that any other form of dispute resolution will be effective in this case. I will not address any comments having to do with anything related to my topic-ban, or the subject of the arbitration request. Any such comments should be directed to ArbCom, at [143]. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Notified other involved party as I am of the impression Fearofreprisal wants to have no interaction with them. Amortias (T)(C) 00:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I did notify him, but I was a little slow.[144] Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this seems like its going to be difficult for anyone to discuss. The first part relates to an ongoing ANI thread (which should be dealt with there) and ArbCom which you won't discuss. The second part relates to an unsigned nomination (unhelpful but not actionable), a lack of notification (unhelpful but unlikely to result in action) and ArbCom which you won't discuss. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Hijiri88 made a bad mistake by not notifying Fearofreprisal about the MfD request for a subpage of Fearofreprisal (see permalink of how it looked—that page does violate WP:POLEMIC despite its subtlety). An interaction ban should only occur after a series of problems, and it is likely that the current issues will soon be over as FoR is topic banned and the Arbcom case request will probably be resolved in a reasonably short time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I didn't notice that Arbitration requests were an exception to the TBAN until it was pointed out to me in the section above. Se ems like a uncharacteristically bad judgement on User:TParis' part; several other users agree that this exception probably should not have been allowed in the first place , but I accept that it was a failure on my pa rt to review the specifics of Fearofreprisal's ban before posting the above thread. This was a good-faith mistake on my part: Fearofreprisal's "mistakes", on the other hand...
2. I did not ask for Fearofreprisal to be "indefinitely banned". I asked for an indefinite block. The user was TBANned for disruptive behaviour, and then flagrantly continue d his disruptive behaviour in the exact same topic area almost immediately afterward.
3. The very fact that I am "not a party to the arbitration request" is interesting. I have indeed been one of the major contributors to that page over the last few weeks. I largely withdrew once the only editor engaged in disruption was TBANned, but engaged in off-site canvassing making the page almost impossible to save. Fearofreprisal apparently saw my response to him earlier and decided it best not to include me in his "list of Christian apologists trying to insert theology into a history article", and since I was already clearly not a Christian apologist, he saw it as expedient not to invite me to participate in the arbitration discussion. At least two other users have since expressed equal uneasiness at Fearofreprisal making bad-faith (and incorrect) assumptions about their religious convictions, forcing them against their will to make theological professions of faith (or lack thereof) as prerequisites for editing a Wikipedia article.
4. The claim that my request for a block "appears to be an attempt to do an end-around run on ArbCom" is a blatant violation of WP:AGF: Fearofreprisal has flagrantly violated his TBAN in the creation of a user subpage attacking editors who disagree with him on the historicity of Jesus article. Re questing that he be blocked for this and his other offenses (off-site canvassing, sockpuppetry, constant personal attacks, etc.) can not be taken in good faith as an attempt to disrupt an arbitration request.
5. I requested that his TBAN-violating attack page on various users who disagree with him be deleted. I "did not sign" my request because I was editing from a phone and so apparently failed to see the part in the MFD page where it specified that my op comment would not be automatically signed like on page-move requests. I apologize for this extremely minor oversight on my part. I do not apologize for not informing Fearofreprisal of the MFD, though, since despite Fearofreprisal's above misrepresentation this is not a "requirement" but a "recommendation"; indeed, like in the thread above, a direct response from Fearofreprisal would almost certainly have itself been a TBAN violation, so informing him would have been meaningless to begin with.
6. Virtually everyone else thinks the page was created in bad faith and was a direct violation of the TBAN. That is no doubt why it was deleted without discussion on such short notice. The closing admin made no comment to that effect, though, so I can't be sure. It should be noted that, again in violation of his TBAN, Fearofreprisal requested that the deletion be reverted.
7. I clearly don't deserve an IBAN, since the only things I did wrong were minor for matting errors and a slight oversight on the nature of the TBAN (Fearofreprisal did violate the TBAN anyway, so the fact that the ArbCom request was not technically a violation is irrelevant). Fearofreprisal posted ridiculous personal attacks against me on the Historicity of Jesus talk page, on my own talk page, and on this noticeboard: the claim that by responding to these personal attacks I am engaging in "harassment" is laughable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you were disappointed, but Arbcom is a normal exemption per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions.--v/r - TP 03:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment: This is a circular mess. Filing for arbitration is allowed as a condition of Fearofreprisal's topic ban. Therefore, a request for an indefinite ban in the ANI report noted above must convincingly demonstrate that filing for arbitration was done in bad faith. So far, the evidence is inconclusive. It should be resolved there rather than through an interaction ban here. I recommend this filing be closed without prejudice as premature. It may become necessary later if the conduct dispute cannot be resolved by other means. Ignocrates (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates: Please disclose that you are an involved party, who has had substantial conflicts with me. Your "oppose" vote is inappropriate.

Fearofreprisal, I would if I was truly involved. I have barely interacted with you. I don't recall what those "conflicts" might be other than a comment at previous ANI and a statement I just made in arbitration. That is the extent of our "involvement". Ignocrates (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that "substantial conflicts" might mean with you using an old username which is your real name. Nod if you agree (kidding). If that's the case, I apologize for not making the connection sooner. Ignocrates (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hijiri88 had the opportunity to make a statement in the RfA, but instead chose to post an incident here. He did so with the explicit expectation that I would not be able to respond. Quoting him:

I'm not going to specifically notify him other than the above WP:PING, since his TBAN technically forbids him from responding here, or on his talk page, and posting on his talk page about this seems like it would be poking the weasel. If he wants to appeal the ban on his talk page after getting blocked he can do that, but frankly I think self-confessed POV-pushing sockpuppets should be blocked on-site and never unblocked until they disclose their main account's username.[145]

While Hijiri88 has provided no evidence of sockpuppetry, in seeking to disclose my "main account's username," he actually seeks to discover my real life name - "outing" me in the process. (See [146]) Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has withdrawn his request that I be indefinitely banned, after discovering that his request was baseless and inappropriate.[147] Yet, he continues to call my username a "sock", despite the fact that I have used it for over 6 years to make almost a thousand edits on over 90 different pages,[148], and despite the fact that he can not provide a single piece of evidence to suggest that I've engaged in sockpuppetry. Further, he continues to make accusations which he knows I can not answer without violating a topic ban.

Beyond this, Hijiri88 continues claim that my statements and supporting evidence in support of a request for arbitration merit me being site-banned. He's trying to use ANI to usurp the authority of ArbCom.

Hijiri88 has not acted in good faith. My request for an interaction ban is both reasonable and justified. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

BS. I already pointed out that your claim that I requested for you to be indefinitely banned was wrong (you already are indefinitely banned -- I asked for a block). Additionally, of the four rationales I provided (your ArbCom request violating the TBAN, your user page violating the TBAN, your continued personal attacks, and your self-confessed use of a sock account to troll the historicity of Jesus article), only one has been disproven. I withdrew my request for you to be indefinitely blocked at the soonest opportunity (as opposed to after the ArbCom case is closed) because circumstances convinced me that it would be easier to sit back and watch you dig yourself a bigger hole. The Fearofreprisal account has made a little under 1,000 edits in six years (an average of roughly one edit every two days), and virtually all of these edits have been in a relatively small group of pages, virtually all related to Joe Arpaio or the historicity of Jesus; 529 of these edits have been made since July 2014, and 520 of these have been related to the subject of the TBAN.

As for your continued requested that I be "indefinitely banned": what good will it do? I have only ever interacted with you on the article you are already banned from editing, and have never once edited the Joe Arpaio article. The only effect that could possibly come from an IBAN is you going around vandalizing a bunch of pages on Japanese classical literature just to spite me. Go ask any of the admins involved in this thread to find out what will happen with you if you try that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You continue making inappropriate and baseless allegations. I think further sanctions are appropriate. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose A two interaction ban requires,in my mind, a history of disputes that go back quite a ways. Mistakenly asking for an indef block for a violating a topic ban, when it wasn't a violation plus forgetting to notify a user of a deletion of one of their pages is not sufficient to show a history of harassment or the like. The page that was taken to MFD could not be taken as anything but a violation of WP:POLEMIC or an attack page. A simple list with diffs associated to a user would have done just as well, but starting to categorise editors is a no-no. Blackmane (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that an Iban does not require a history of disputes that go back "quite a ways," but rather requires a current conflict. Per WP:IBAN: "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others." I do not believe that this conflict can be otherwise resolved, and it has already gotten out of hand. And, to be clear, the conflict has not stopped: Hijiri88 is continuing to accuse me of violating a topic ban, either intentionally ignoring WP policy, or out of ignorance.

Speaking of policy: You called my userspace evidence page a polemic. Here is what WP:POLEMIC says: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The page in question is a "compilation of factual evidence", and it is currently being used in a request for arbitration. Per Arbitration policy: "Evidence may be submitted privately, but the Committee normally expects evidence to be posted publicly unless there are compelling reasons not to do so."

You also called the the page an WP:Attack page ("a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material which is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.") The page exists as evidence in a request for arbitration. It does not in any way disparage or threaten anyone, is neutral in tone, and is sourced to actual Wikipedia editing data. If there is any "attack" in this page, feel free to point it out to me in the talk page, so I can fix it.

And you suggested that a "simple list with diffs associated to a user would have done just as well." I'm not going to discuss the details of my arbitration request here, but will explain why the data is in the form it is: What is now represented as an easy to read table of summary data and links would require tens of thousands of entries to represent as a "simple list with diffs." I suspect that ArbCom would not find this particularly useful.

If I've sufficiently made the case that my userspace evidence page is not a polemic or attack page, and is in accord with policy, I'd like to get back to the issue of an Iban with Hijiri88.

There is a continuing conflict that cannot otherwise be resolved, except by a mutual Iban. My request is reasonable and appropriate, and will result in no damage to Hijiri88. All it will do is prevent him from harassing me. There is no reasonable basis for anyone -- even Hijiri88 -- to oppose this request. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

FOP, you and I have only ever interacted on the historicity of Jesus article. You are already TBANned from this and all related articles. What chance is there that you and I will have disruptive interactions in the future, unless you plan on violating said TBAN? Or do you plan on getting me to agree to a mutual IBAN just to shut you up, and then developing a sudden tremendous interest in Japanese classical literature? Also, I'm pretty sure it's technically impossible for me to have an interaction ban with a two-article sock account. If you want you can publish the name of your main account, and indicate where I have had negative interactions in the past with that account; but bear in mind that this would mean your historicity of Jesus TBAN would also be applied to your main account. Also, note that I have not demanded that you be forced to reveal your main account's username, merely that your sock account be blocked; but if, as you claim, your main account's username is your real name, it would not strictly speaking be "outing" to connect the two anyway -- you would have already outed yourself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as a ridiculous request. Hijiri88 made an understandable mistake in requesting that Fearofreprisal be blocked for posting the RFAR. FOR had a right, based on the exact wording of the TBAN, to post the RFAR, but Hijiri88 had reason to think that it violated the topic-ban. One mistake does not require an IBAN. This request is ridiculous and vexatious. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Separating the "Proposed Site Ban of..." subsection into a separate section. The incidents are distinct and independent. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing request for IBAN without prejudice

Moving issue to ArbCom. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:24, 15 October 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.

Article "Bangkok" vandalism

I have the page "Bangkok" on my watchlist. Can someone please look at the following diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangkok&diff=629826444&oldid=629826174

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangkok&diff=next&oldid=629299242

Are these users the same person? Is this sockpuppetry? Please check and investigate. Thanks. TChemB (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are related to a few other accounts listed on one of those talk pages. Maybe a passing checkuser will take another look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we protect the page "Bangkok" from vandalism (silver-lock/allow only auto-confirmed users)? TChemB (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If no one does anything here, you could take it to WP:RFPP and see if you get better results. And I wonder if the juvenile who posted that has any clue how old that lame joke is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple issues with editor Bobi987 Ivanov

I've been trying to (initially) help an editor and (later on) explain what's wrong with his edits. However, the editor in question Bobi987 Ivanov (talk · contribs) refuses to acknowledge any advice. He's been doing everything in an non-encyclopaedic and rather biased manner. Here is a list of only a few of the problems with his editing:

• Spamming articles with a multitude of quotes aimed at proving a point he wants to make ([149], [150], [151], [152], [153] etc.). Pretty much every edit of his has been an introduction of long, mostly unrelated and poorly sourced quotes in bold text.
• Using misleading edit-summaries ([154], [155])
• Introduced and re-introduced unreliable sources, like blogs, various depreciated websites (like promacedonia.org), and photos of possibly scanned text (there are many examples mostly found in the articles Todor Panitsa, Boris Sarafov, Yane Sandanski)
• Intentionally misinterpreting sources - I've outlined one particular case at Talk:Todor Panitsa, but he seems to be doing it all the time, evidently without giving a second thought - he has been reverting the article to his preferred version again and again.
• Excessive use of bold text in order to stress on points he likes.
  

My attempts at explaining that he's doing things wrong do not seem to bother him one bit. Initially, I thought he was a new editor and tried providing him with advice. Only later did I come to realise he was an experienced user who should know better. Additionally, he sometimes edit while logged off ([156], [157], [158] etc) from an IP-range involved in persistent vandalism (which might or might not bear a connection to the user). He does not seem willing to learn or even read any basic rules or guidelines of editing. He's active on another wiki-project where he seems to be doing the same thing he's doing here. Additionally, his, I am sorry to say, poor grasp of English evidently prevents him from understanding some messages. It also makes it hard to understand the text he adds to articles and the edit-summaries he sometimes leaves. --Laveol ^T 17:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"without giving a second thought"?? I am giving the second thought. These articles have been managed by the Bulgarian paid propaganda, and they are not even a little bit objective. There are so many Bulgarian falsifications and manipulations, that I wouldn't know where to to start to explain. But, I never delete anything, I just add some more information, and provide the source, as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobi987 Ivanov (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't see that much of a problem, but I will have to look into it more. Can you explain what kind of result you are looking for Laveol? --Obsidi (talk ) 01:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping that the editor might be willing to listen to some of my notes, if reiterated by another editor. He seems willing to take advice which he thinks comes from a position of authority (based on that edit-summary). Since my initial post here, however, he went on to perform at least four reverts within 24-hours on Yane Sandanski. And this, after I warned him. I am guessing it might be a continuation of his conflict with a user from mk.wiki (see this). I am now more inclined on a block. --Laveol ^T 08:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The user in question is clearly here with an agenda. His POV is that of a Macedonian nationalist, that much is clear, but that does not mean that he could not contribute constructively. The main problem is not only his polemic behaviour, as evidenced in his revert-warring, but more worryingly, IMO, the blatant misuse and misrepresentation of sources, as shown in Talk:Todor Panitsa. The user obviously knows enough Greek to pick out the stuff that suits him from a source, so he knows enough Greek to understand that the rest of the text he cites claims the exact opposite of the claims he deduces from it. I too would advocate for a stern warning, perhaps along with a short block over revert-warring (this is WP:ARBMAC territory, although a warning to the effect has not been issued yet), in hopes that he will remedy his behaviour. Constantine ✍ 15:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP/N topic- Debito Arudou

For your convenience here's a link to it [159]. Arudoudebito had prior taken this matter to ARBCOM. They did not take the case but did recommend it be taken to BLP/N. NYB had mentioned that this would probably benefit from the eyes of Admins and more experienced editors. The wall of text in BLP/N is much larger than the article it's complaining about so it probably would be helpful to have more eyes on it. There are also a number of claims about conduct and request for topic bans.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Buster Hatfield

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

---

Hi

User is claiming to be an administrator on his Userpage, also making personal attacks at my talk page[160].Amortias (T)(C) 21:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for this and other reasons. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Theres also an edit summary we could do with loosing on my talk page. Amortias (T)(C) 21:08, 16 October 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.

Allegation of Racism at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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.

---

By the user here: [161]. Yesterday I warned about misrepresenting my position (slander) on the user's talk page [162], and explained why I find a Malaysian source to be unreliable here [163], along with links to other places where it had been explained previously. User responded by calling me a racist today because I "don't like Malaysian sources". Geogene (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

[164] appears to be a legal threat, you might want to retract/modify it before you get blocked under WP:NLT CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol. USchick (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The above editor has been here 6 years and should know better. The OP needs to pull back from the legal threat language, but unless USchick can provide proof to back up his/her personal attacks on the OP, USchick should be put on ice for a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on that CombatWombat, you have a point. I have no interest in any kind of legal action. I'll modify that comment however people want so there's no misunderstanding, at the same time I don't want to be accused of altering the record too much. Geogene (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

From: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#RfC: Should a tag be placed at the top of this article?

• And New Straits Times was dismissed as unreliable simply for being Malaysian. USchick (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Prove it.
• Direct quote from User:Geogene: "But I only oppose using NST in this particular article, I'm sure most of its uses elsewhere are fine." [165] At the same time, a discredited social media comment is still in the lede simply because it was "widely reported." Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Social media from Igor Girkin. My proposal to remove speculation out of the lede was also shot down with no good reason. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Proposal to remove all speculation out of the lede USchick (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• In case it's not clear, Geogene is saying that a Malaysian news source can't be trusted to choose the right side of the argument because sometimes they actually have an independently Malaysian viewpoint. Then he proceeds to cherry pick when NST can be trusted, and it turns out, only when they agree with Geogene. USchick (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Followed by slander accusation.
• There are other things being reported in RS, but since you don't like those particular reports, that information is being censored in this article. When I point out this discrepancy you accused me of slander on my talk page User talk:USchick#Slandering other editors in MH17. USchick (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, I most certainly have. Geogene (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC) USchick (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If the New Straits Times is effectively an arm of the Malaysian government, then it can't be considered independent and hence can't be considered reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New Straits Times is Malaysia's oldest newspaper still in print since 1845. I'm not aware of any evidence that it's "an arm of the Malaysian government" formed in 1957. USchick (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The article says it's "pro-government". Do they ever criticize the government? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. "The Selangor government has slammed the New Straits Times for reporting that water from former mining ponds now being pumped into Sungai Selangor is toxic." [166] USchick (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

All that is beside the point. Geogene was NOT saying that an article from NST can't be used because it's Malaysian. S/he said that it can't be used because it was based on a crazy conspiracy site (global research). USchick then began accusing Geogene of being racist. They were effectively lying about the reason given for why this was not a reliable source, and doing so in quite an odious way (which is what accusing someone of racism is). Volunteer Marek  20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Talk about the edits and not the editor. If USchick has any confusion about that, they can be blocked until that confusion is straightened out.--v/r - TP 19:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First, I was accused of slander, and then I was accused of being a liar (twice). Does anyone get blocked for that? All I said is that discounting Malaysian sources simply for being Malaysian is racist. I stand behind my comment. I'm sure there's a policy to back this up. USchick (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's your response, I'm tempted to block you right now. You literally called someone a racist. Are you actually saying that you expect someone to not accuse you of slander for that? You didn't at all say "discounting Malaysian sources simply for being Malaysian is racist". You said "your racist friend". That's about a person, not sources. Seriously, your next reply needs to acknowledge how you escalated this issue dramatically and how you retract your accusations and in the future you will address the edits and not the editor.--v/r - TP 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First, I was accused of slander, then I was accused of being a liar (twice). In response, I called someone a "racist friend" and didn't name anyone in particular. Block me, right NOW if you wish, I'm not scared. I will be a martyr for justice. :-) USchick (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you will be a martyr for name-callers and 5 yr olds everywhere.--v/r - TP 19:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You have to start somewhere. Seriously, I see where it escalated and I said this needed to stop, and then I offered to be the first one to stop. And then i did stop. I can find the link if you want. USchick (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw where you said you'd stop. That isn't enough. You really need to remove the part calling OP a racist. Then OP needs to remove the parts calling things slander (which I think may have already happened) and then this thing is settled.--v/r - TP 19:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. USchick (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And sorry, I should not have come into this so aggressively, but this comment by you really irked me. It felt dismissive and cavalier.--v/r - TP 20:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, I remember you being cavalier before on a Jewish Bolshevism article. You were awesome then, and you're still awesome! Here's where i crossed out my comment. [167] USchick (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I only try to stay true to Tom Paris.--v/r - TP 20:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Live long and prosper. USchick (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

But the best defense against personal attacks by other people is to completely ignore that. If someone calls me a liar, then at that point that person is the one who is frustrated. So, that other person has a problem and if I don't fall in the trap of responding in kind, I can still continue to argue based in the relavant issues. The other person may get frustrated even more, resort to even more personal attacks, but why would I care? I've won the argument, that the other person has problems with that shouldn't matter to me. Count Iblis (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree! Unfortunately this is not always obvious at the time, especially when you're talking about content and lots of editors gang up on you and attack. They're waiting for you to say something, so they can take you to ANI and get you out of the way, so they can continue to do what they were doing before. I was assuming good faith, even when pepole were discounting Russian language sources (not Russian government), but when Malaysian sources were attacked for no good reason, that was a little too much. USchick (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

They're waiting for you to say something, so they can take you to ANI and get you out of the way, so they can continue to do what they were doing before.... but when Malaysian sources were attacked for no good reason, that was a little too much. ? So I'm still a racist? Geogene (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because accusing others of racism is "assuming good faith". Riiiiigggghhhhhttttt...  Volunteer Marek  21:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Ip in a personal campaign of revenge

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.

---

During the last days an unlogged editor reverts every single edit I perform [[168]] & [[169]] 85.179.xxx.xx. He is not limited in a specific topic but reverts virtually everything whether this is about Cyprus [[170]] or Illyria [[171]], considered it's edited by me. From the ip's location I can assume he is the permablocked Skipetari [[172]], while at the same time he displays a similar pattern in the German wiki [[173]] (editting as logged user there since he isnt' blocked in de:wiki).

Maybe a short-term range block can solve this, since he is really busy reverting 'everything' that's seen in my contribution log.Alexikoua (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days, let me know if the problem recurrs or go to WP:AIV. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting block on NicholasJudy456

NicholasJudy456 is a persistently disruptive editor who has been vandalizing pages pretty much nonstop for some time now. Examples of his "handiwork": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nickelodeon&oldid=629713229
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nicktoons&oldid=629650240
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lalaloopsy&oldid=629710218
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ren_%26_Stimpy_Show&oldid=626485470
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Litton%27s_Weekend_Adventure&oldid=625729765
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTV2&oldid=629713276
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Channel&oldid=625730544
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricburst1996 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're required to notify the editor. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I did so in lieu of Electricburst, pointless as said notification can be. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I see the first one as putting in a list of Broadcast affiliates, it looks like he took the MTV2 list of affiliates and added them to the Nickelodeon (appears to be a purposeful vandalism). The second one seems to be a spelling correction (this doesn't seem like vandalism to me). Third is something about Lalaloopsy's that I cant tell is accurate, but most of the article isn't even sourced at all. Adding Kabillion as one of the original channels of the The Ren & Stimpy Show (this appears to be inaccurate, although it is a "channel" I cant find any evidence that the ren and stimpy show was on there). The third one was about Weekend Adventures Disney Junior section on it (I cant find any evidence that this is accurate and they are two separate companies that seems unlikely this would occur, but I guess its possible). The 4th seems to be removing the MTV2 current stations, this doesn't seem accurate. The 5th is about adding Lalaloopsy to the list of shows on Disney Junior, this seems at least plausible given this [174]. The worst is the pure cut and past from the MTV to the Nick page, and I cant find anything to substantiate that actually occurred. I would strike the second one (can you explain why it is vandalism?) --Obsidi (talk ) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"May 2014, the year that was a facebook page and July 2014 Now The Teenage Versions of Lalaloopsy's Come to Life." is not something a proper editor would add, and it doesn't belong there. And no, Nick isn't broadcasting on MTV2's over the air stations. It hasn't gotten to the point where a block is needed, but the user needs to understand our policies and hoaxes will not be accepted. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yea it doesn't make any sense to me (but then it doesn't make any sense at all, I don't know why someone would want to vandalize that in). Totally agree about that last sentence. --Obsidi (talk ) 02:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok he has made another edit that has me suspicious now ([175]). This edit changes the properties of a tv station slogan (in addition to assocating it with Nickelodeon). But it makes me suspicious that this account is a wp:sockpuppet of User:Gsnguy. I added a sockpuppet case here:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gsnguy --Obsidi (talk ) 23:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Them again? Signs look like it. Just when it looks like some of these long-pained socks seem to be done they get the bug back in them to resume these messes. Nate • (chatter) 01:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Incumbent article is a mess

Currently our incumbent article is a BLP nightmare, however it has been a mess since at least February of this year, and probably much longer. I am not sure where to go with this article. Any assistance would be appreciated. VViking_TalkEdits 12:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First, get long-term semi-protection. Go to WP:RFPP if no one jumps on it here. Then, revert the page back to its last good version and see if there are any intermediate edits worth re-adding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Bugs, did you review the edit history for this article? This innocuous perma-stub has been a long-term problem over several years, with no one apparently watch-listing it and deleting garbage content as it's being added. I have posted a notice on the WikiProject Politics page, asking them to watch list it and monitor it, but I have no idea if WP:Politics is active. I suspect a lot of this goes on in the largely un-patrolled back alleys of Wikipedia -- I have found a half dozen pure hoax articles in the last year, at least two of which survived New Page Patrol. Wikipedia really needs a better system for dealing with such problems in a more timely manner. Wikipedia's anti-vandalism systems are being tested daily, and it is apparent there are huge gaps in our safety nets. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

So it seems, yes. The article is being treated like a sandbox. Not good. At this point, permanent semi-protection would seem to be in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've found a fairly decent and more complete version from 01:18, 4 February 2014 and have restored that one. Maybe now that it no longer looks like a stub, it will be less attractive. Semi-protection is probably a good idea for a while, though. It's very odd how such an innocuous topic seems to have attracted so many frankly weird people. Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, in my personal experience, it's the backwaters that attract the most long-term vandalism because no one is watching them. I have over 3,500 articles on four different watch lists, and one thing I have observed is that when vandalism is quickly deleted/reverted, the vandals move on to other targets. I have several watch-listed articles that were previously problematic but no longer experience problems. Poorly written articles are also vandalism magnets. Vandals gravitate where their edits survive. Some of these folks are long-term problems, and I believe that at least some are intentionally testing our systems to see what they can get away with. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No question about it. I don't know what the solution would be. Maybe some bot program which uses an algorithm to figure out how many active non-vandals are watching the article, and to put it up for re-review if it's a low number, like maybe 5 or less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've requested WP:Oversight on the last one there, although I did forget to change the subject on the form from the default "Wikipedia email". ansh666 00:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@ansh666: That's okay, it doesn't matter too much.  :) Julia\^talk 00:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Figured. I saw the scary red warning thing the moment before I clicked "submit" (or whatever the send button is), and thought it was funny. Thanks! ansh666 01:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Threat of 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.

---

User iNic has threatened me twice that I would be blocked if I continue to revert his deletions. The incident has happened in the revision summary of this history page on 14:28, 14 October 2014‎ and on 19:18, 2 October 2014‎. The reason provided by INic is the 3RR rule which clearly doesn't apply to my case because I revert his deletions at most one time per day. I believe that he acted like that on purpose to frighten me and to stop me from reverting his deletions. I believe that this case is categorized in the harassment - threats section. Caramella1 (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:EW. You can be blocked for edit-warring which doesn't reach 3RR. DeCausa (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Both editors are on the verge of violating 3RR at that article, I have warned them both. GiantSnowman 12:33, 15 October 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.

Mass creation of American Contact Bridge League articles

Misunderstanding cleared up, articles were worthy. A reminder not to bite the newbies and to assume good faith. No such user (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Requesting eyes on the recent spate of articles created by Nicolas.hammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It appears that all of these are sourced to unreliable sources and are unlikely to have sufficient coverage to attain notability. Given the quantity of articles created, and no talk interactions since 2007 (and then to dispute a copyvio), I am not hopeful that this will stop. Rather than propose dozens of CSDs, a quick mop pass might suffice. Thank you for looking. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two problems here. One is that Nicolas Hammond should stop making these rapid fire unsourced BLP stubs (and I note he did, his new creations are all sourced!), and go a bit slower and create slightly better and sourced articles. The other is that people really shouldn't speedy delete these on completely bogus grounds. The article Lew Stansby has been speedy deleted as an A7 (no claim of importance) by User:Malik Shabazz. I have now restored it. At the time of the deletion, the article claimed that he had won 4 world championships and 31 North American Bridge Championships, plus many other titles. Many of the tournaments he won have bluelinks, so appear to be notable events, e.g. his three wins at the Bermuda Bowl alone would be sufficient to make an A7 invalid. No chance at an AfD either, by the way, as it stands or with added sources like [176].

"Rather than propose dozens of CSDs", he should be guided into making better articles, but none of the articles should be speedy deleted (BLPProd is another issue, but that has nothing to do with notability). The subjects of all articles I checked have clear claims to notability, and the ones I checked online all seemed to be correct as well, no hoaxes. It seems that bridge players have been seriously underrepresented so far, and the editor is doing a good-faith and long needed effort to correct this gap in our coverage. Give him a barnstar and a mentor, not an ANI thread and speedy deletions please. Fram (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Tgeairn, hy do you claim that these are sourced to unreliable sources? The site of the American Contract Bridge League, which is the site used to source the articles you nominated for speedy deletion, is not an unreliable source at all. It is not an independent source, a source from organisers of a sport / passtime / whatever can not be used to indicate notability at an AfD, but it is clearly a reliable source, and more than enough to avoid A7 speedy and BLPprod.

Further, Hammond made his latest contribution at 05.42. You tagged one article for speedy at 06.33, one at 06.35, and opened this ANI at 06.44. No attempt at discussion at all. The more I look into this, the more it becomes clear that Hammond is the innocent party here, and that everyone else involved should take a good look at what they did and where they went wrong. Fram (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for looking... A little further looking on my part didn't reveal much in the world of bridge players either, so maybe we have a whole new fountain of content here (which is a good thing). I would caution that the tournaments, teams, and awards articles all appear to be either created by or significantly edited (adding names to the lists) by the same editor and one other. I am not seeing anything (so far) that I would keep at an AfD, and at the same time I am not going to say AfD is the way to go. A mentor and/or guidance would be a great thing here, I think. I just don't see the editor responding to any attempts (since 2007). We really can't keep dozens of BLPs with such minimal sourcing though... I'll start watchlisting. Tgeairn (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I came here fairly quickly because I saw at first a couple BLPs and then looked and saw dozens. Further looking found that the editor has been unresponsive to talk requests since 2007, and I wanted to halt what looked like an ongoing mass addition of narrowly sourced BLPs. I don't think anyone (including myself or you) did anything wrong in trying to address this. If you're comfortable with the sourcing for a BLP, then that's really all I need right now. I have definitely not done the research to see if these people are notable, but a fast and mass addition of BLPs, all sourced to the same website, by an editor who has been unresponsive in the past, should have someone looking (even if the outcome is that "all is well"). --Tgeairn (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? "I just don't see the editor responding to any attempts (since 2007)" and "no talk interactions since 2007 (and then to dispute a copyvio)", "an editor who has been unresponsive in the past" are a case for concern if someone has ignored many talk page comments. But between 2007 and yesterday, there has been one "discussion", i.e. two notes about the same article: the listing at Prod, and the listing at AfD (for an article he shouldn't have created, but which had nothing vandalistic or anything in it). There have never been any questions asked at his talk page, so how can he have been unresponsice? To take this as the clear evidence that he wouldn't reply is, well, strange to say the least. Lets' just hope that you (plural) haven't chased away an editor who is clearly knowledgeable about the subject, clearly willing to spend some time in extending our coverage, but just needs some friendly guidance in how best to do this. Fram (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If there is a good and/or willing editor here, then let's support them in contributing. I said unresponsive as they have created over 120 BLPs in the past 36 hours, many of which are currently tagged for CSD or BLPProd, and have not responded to any of those CSDs or PRODs. I have no interest in chasing anyone away, AND we cannot have 120+ BLPs created that all hinge on a web published daily article that is published and edited by someone with the same name as the editor creating all of those articles. I COMPLETELY AGREE that we want to encourage new editors (even old editors), but BLP and sourcing are serious and it was in no way inappropriate for me to bring this here or propose CSD. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"over 120 BLPs in the past 36 hours" Wow. Just wow. And if he's citing his own website -- this sounds clearly like COI, linkspam, cruft, and whatever else you want to call self-promotion and Google-hit-mongering. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, again, all calm down and stop with the accusations. Linkspam? Cruft? He is, if the username matches the person, an expert on the subject, sharing his knowledge in the way he knows. Instead of claiming "self promotion", "Google-hit-mongering", "linkspam" and so on, look at what he really produces. He created an article on Seymon Deutsch (which was nominated for speedy!), who had an obituary in the NYTimes[177]. "Citing his own website" is the website of the American Contract Bridge League, "the largest contract bridge organization in North America", not some personal fansite or forum. If Sepp Blatter would create articles on soccer players and linked to the FIFA website, would you also accuse him of these things? Obviously, the ACBL is a lot smaller than FIFA, but it is not some insignificant or unreliable organisation. I can find no evidence that the ACBL website is even his website, or that the Daily Bulletin is his work. this one from 2014 lists three editors, none of them called Hammond. This one from 2013 also doesn't list him as the editor.

Can we pleae drop all hyperbole and accusations without evidence, and look at the facts, and at how we treated (and are treating) an editor with knowledge of the subject and the will to help Wikipedia? Fram (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Points taken, but scattershot "over 120 BLPs in the past 36 hours" is worrisome any way you look at it in my opinion. All of these scattershot rapid-fire articles have empty sections marked "2BD". Someone needs to clean those sections out (I got rid of some), and take the editor in hand and convince him that quality not quantity is what Wikipedia is all about. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed (though Wikipedia is about quality and quantity). Fram (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tgeairn, "BLP and sourcing are serious and it was in no way inappropriate for me to bring this here or propose CSD." Um, yes, it was. No attempt to communicate, no indication of any real BLP concerns (has anything been found to be contentious or wrong? Were his new creations even unsourced at the time of your ANI section?), means that it was inappropriate to start this. Furthermore, the CSDs were inappropriate as well, as they were obviously incorrect. Finally, your claims in this section contain more BLP violations than all his articles combined. You accuse him of "120+ BLPs created that all hinge on a web published daily article that is published and edited by someone with the same name as the editor creating all of those articles", but provide no evidence that this is true. I looked, and I can't find any evidence for this claim. This is a clear BLP violation and personal attack, which then gets picked up and exaggerated to new levels by Softlavender. You also claim of his articles that "many of which are currently tagged for CSD or BLPProd", but none are currently tagged for CSD, and as far as I can tell, none are tagged for BLPProd either, since he has sourced all these articles in the meantime (long before your first comments). So please, just back off, what you are doing is a lot worse than what this editor has done. Fram (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note sure if this is how I responds, but I'll post here. I'm Nicolas Hammond. The quality/quantity of US Contract Bridge players in Wikipedia is/was very small, particularly when compared to others sports. I set a limit of 10+ National Championships or a World Championship in the criteria of deciding who to create articles on or someone who has had a significant impact on Bridge. I am a member of the American Contract Bridge League (ACBL), same as 170,000 other people. ACBL.org is not my web site. I am not an editor of any ACBL publication. Neither is the World Bridge Federation (WBF). I am a computer programmer, therefore know how to quickly create multiple pages. There is a common format with other bridge players. I simply copied it. I did create some 2BD, because I am trying to get some folks from other places to update the entries. I will make sure that I don't add any more 2BDs. I would respond to talk, but I don't check my Wikipedia very often, nor is it sometimes clear who to respond to someone/somebot. Nor did I realize that you require a 15 minute response time to talk. Someone wanted speedy deletion of Lew Stansby. Lew is 5th of the list of all time winners of American Bridge Championships. He has won 4 world championships. He has won 35 American Bridge Championships, each Championship was at least a 2 day event, some of them are 7 days long. The list of Baseball Home Run Leaders has over 300 entries - every single player has a Wikipedia entry. Players #5, #6 on the Bridge equivalent list did not have entries. I only wrote articles where the person was mentioned AT LEAST 5 TIMES on existing Wikipedia pages. I then edited the pages where someone is mentioned so that they had a link to their name. The first time I posted, I got auto-bot information that the players needed to be sourced, so I went through, manually redid all the posts, and made sure every one of the AT LEAST 5 prior entries on Wikipedia was fully sourced to an outside newspaper/web sites. There are 292 bridge players that have won at least 5 National Championships, 129 who have won at least 10 national championships. All 129 are deserving, IMHO, of entries on Wikipedia. I happened to have a few volunteer hours available this week (a rare occurence), so put them to use on this project. My suggestion is that you get someone who is familiar with Bridge to decide the significance of the players that I wrote a bio on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas.hammond (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed a few of your entries and took a brief overview of the rest, mostly in Category:American bridge players, and I can vouch for their notability. I didn't review if they all have references (I think you started adding them later) to pass WP:BLPPROD, but that should be taken care about later. Thank you again for your effort, and I hope you will stay on Wikipedia despite this misunderstanding. I'm closing this section, everything is now hopefully sorted out. No such user (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Midnight Rider (film)

Special:Contributions/138.229.220.3, User:MHBDCS and User:DavidGroveCam are all single-article accounts that only became active in the last few hours. They appear to be the same person, who has taken an interest in Midnight Rider (film). As seen with this dif, DavidGroveCam wrote this line in his edit summary: this is a legal matter that will result in action against Gothicfilm if they persist in this libelous posting. The article is well sourced, as anyone looking into it can see, and I was not the one who originally put in the text being edit-warred over on the page. The third account was created after I posted WP:3RR warnings at the Talk pages for the first two. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a legal threat. You may want to ask for semi-protection for the article. The admins can handle the SPA's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This becoming a problem, Semi protection may be required. A "new" editor called User:GoyaLover is chopping text about with the same capricious abandon as DavidGroveCam and MHBDCS. The editor is refusing discussion. Paul B (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware this attempted manipulation of facts pertains to a current ongoing Involuntary Manslaughter criminal case in the state of Georgia, serious disputed OSHA citations, as well as ongoing Federal Railroad Administration and National Transportation Safety Board Investigations. DFinmitre (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As this diff reveals User:138.229.220.3 is clearly not only sock puppeting with User:DavidGroveCam but trying to impersonate a real life person, David Grove who is a well known proffessional cameraman, that those familiar with "Midnight Rider" may be aware of as he has been referenced in national articles related to the tragedy. David is part of a large group protesting the criminally indicted producers attempts to continue with film after tragedy. The edit history for User:DavidGroveCam, as this relates to a criminal case, clearly should be retained, although the username is clearly inappropriate, especially given what has been stated above of it being used to make legal threats. It is obvious, but also has been verified, that it is in fact an impersonation. DFinmitre (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked all three accounts (MHBDCS, DavidGroveCam and GoyaLover) for  Confirmed socking.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But what about the original 138.229.220.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), from whom all the named accounts most likely sprang? He hasn't posted since, but is an account creation block possible? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As a CU I'm limited in what I can say regarding tying IPs to accounts. That being said, any admin can block the IP if it is being used abusively. I've watchlisted the article and will jump back in if more socks pop up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Site Ban of User:Fearofreprisal

User:Fearofreprisal has become a vexatious litigant. I recommend a site ban. I would recommend a limited ban from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space, except that the editor in question is a sockpuppet. (It doesn't matter that he hasn't engaged in any of the usual reasons for sockpuppetry, but he is in violation of the one person, one account rule, and doesn't pass any of the legitimate alternate account justifications, which require declaring the association.) Fearofreprisal has, for about a month, been engaging in general disruption (sometimes known impolitely as shit-stirring) associated with Historicity of Jesus, first consisting of disruptive and confrontational editing (often interpreted as trolling). User:Wdford ignored FOR's confrontational attitude and made a bold shortening of the article. I posted an RFC to request acceptance of the shortened article. FOR then demanded that the edit in question be reverted, and posted a frivolous and confrontational Request for Mediation, referring to the shortening with links as "blanking", knowing that an alternate form of dispute resolution, the RFC, was in progress, and knowing that some of the parties would not agree. The RFM was of course rejected. FOR then was topic-banned. FOR then requested arbitration. The RFAR is still awaiting acceptance or rejection. Now FOR has requested an IBAN on another editor. This disruptive use of dispute resolution processes should be stopped. Since Fearofreprisal is an illegitimate alternate account, the appropriate way of stopping the disruptive use of dispute resolution is a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Use in question has shown a clear inability to work with others. Using this account because he fears reprisal of his other account is used isn't a valid reason to sock puppet. Rather, he's using it to avoid scrutiny. -- Calidum 16:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Robert McClenon and Calidum. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

user:Robert McClenon is a party to a current request for arbitration that I have filed.[178] This proposed site ban appears to be payback for my having filed that case. I have requested a temporary injunction at ArbCom. This ANI should be closed as improper. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I sympathize with using a sock account for edits relating to Joe Arpaio and am willing to look the other way on that. If someone doesn't want edits associated with their main account because they'll get in off-site trouble, that's fine under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. That said, if someone doesn't want edits associated with their main account because it will get them into on-site trouble, that's a problem under WP:BADHAND and WP:SCRUTINY. For all we know, FoR could have already been topic, site, or interaction banned under another account.

Yes, Robert's part of that ArbReq filing, but I'm not, and that's not the point. Yes, Hijri88's views on the ArbReq filing were jumping the gun, but that's not relevant either. I'm not a part of the ArbReq filing, and the behavior I've seen from FoR for several months before ArbReq filing is still problematic enough to jsutify a siteban regardless of one's views on the ArbReq filing. Also, Hijri88 was right about the (now deleted) stats page, which others have said violated the topic ban. It's not like FoR has really changed since the topic ban.

If we do not site-ban FoR, we need to at least establish two-way interaction bans between FoR and Hijri88, possibly between FoR and other users as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Fearofreprisal appears to be misstating the facts, either due to ignorance or in order to confuse. First, I added myself to the RFAR in order to support the RFAR and request its expansion. It is the only thing that FOR has done with which I agree. Why would I be seeking payback for a filing that I supported (and added myself to)? Second, FOR requests that this ANI be closed as improper. This main ANI thread was opened by FOR. This subthread, requesting the site ban, is the incoming boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Opposing a daft, bold edit shortening the article into some weird disambiguation page is not 'shit stirring'. It's common sense, and multiple other editors, included myself opposed such stubbing of the article. That was a bold solution to which no one is favorable; it's not a compromise in any sense of the word. There was a good amount of content in the article and in which should not have been blanked or whole heartedly removed. FOR then demanded that the edit in question be reverted, and posted a frivolous and confrontational Request for Mediation, referring to the shortening with links as "blanking", knowing that an alternate form of dispute resolution, the RFC, was in progress, and knowing that some of the parties would not agree. The RFM was of course rejected. FOR then was topic-banned. FOR then requested arbitration. The RFAR is still awaiting acceptance or rejection. I like the use of 'demanded' as if he was literally pounding on the table. No, he just was very blunt in saying that the article should be reverted to the state before the bold edit. (And which the current version now is.) It wasn't supported by consensus and shouldn't have been edit warred over. Also, mediation is supposed to be used in cases like this and is a form of dispute resolution that should be actively encouraged. This is a very contentious topic to which editors have very strong viewpoints on, and should not be decided just so meagerly by edit wars, shouting, incivility. The heart of the issue needs to come to hand. Mediation can do that. A RFM can be rejected based on some simple circumstances, like not everyone who's involved agreeing to it would be an immediate fail, which is what I believe happened in that instance. Now FOR has requested an IBAN on another editor. This disruptive use of dispute resolution processes should be stopped. Well, that's a first for that I believe. An interaction ban might actually be useful given if it's two way. Some editors I just can't get along with, but I mostly avoid their topic area so I don't often have issues with them. At the top of the section, the editor was proposing that he be indefinitely blocked, which I think qualifies. However, given that if I might not be able to get along with another editor, and have tried intensely to solve our differences and focus on content yet it keeps coming up, I might even propose such a thing given if enough disruption happens. The filing for request of arbitration was deliberately excluded from the topic ban and he's seeking that out; Let the Arbitrators decide whether it was frivolous or not. Since Fearofreprisal is an illegitimate alternate account, the appropriate way of stopping the disruptive use of dispute resolution is a site ban. Well per WP:CLEANSTART, A wiki policy it's allowed but it has some careful qualifiers. A user who is not under current restrictions or blocks may stop using their current account and start using a new one. Clean start does not guarantee the two accounts will not be connected, and a user who uses clean start to resume old habits of editing may be identified and seen as trying to evade scrutiny. Given the lack of history of a possible alternative account, I'm going to assume innocent until proven guilty under the alleged sockpuppet remark. Do start a WP:SPI if you see fit. But given the background information I know, since you didn't provide any diffs, there is room for other remarks or sanctions. A full site block/ban should only be used as a last resort against purely disruptive editors. I don't see FOR getting on that end of the stick given what you've told me. You should also provide some diffs, as other editors may wish to see the background info/other WP:ANI's and their results, the RfC, the result, and all of it to provide an informed way to look at the material. Tutelary (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• 'Comment - I didn't say that opposing the shortening of the article was shit-stirring. That was an opinion. Filing the RFM, when the RFC was already in progress, was shit-stirring. Also, the demand that this thread, started by FOR, be withdrawn as improper is shit-stirring. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment - I wouldn't call it "shit stirring". I call it trying to enable a POV Fork, which is not an acceptable WP policy. There is not one piece of information in the old article that is not covered in other articles. What @Wdford: did, on the other hand, was to transform the article into a Spinoff, which is a is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment Based on this, I would assume User:Fearofreprisal would not use their main account to repeat problematic behaviors on this account, since having the two accounts linked would be a Very Bad Thing. If a ban is required (and I don't know enough about the issue to say if it is) I don't think a site ban is needed on the basis of Fearofreprisal being a secondary account. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have a good enough handle on Wikipedia policy or on the background of the case to say if any sort of ban would be suitable (I have to admit, as someone with no investment in the issue I kind of hope the case is accepted by ArbCom so I can learn more from it) but I would strongly oppose the checkuser idea below except with the condition that FoR's real name is kept hidden. I don't think any incident on Wikipedia should lead to an editor being threatened in real life, maybe unless the edits constitute actual crimes. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:TROLL, WP:FRINGE, WP:BATTLEGROUND... you name it, he's done it. I also want to see a CU so that his main account can also be blocked. He claims that a CU would "out" him because his main account uses his real name; he should have either not chosen to edit under his real name in the first place, or not continued to troll other users via a sock account. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I no longer request a CU of Fearofreprisal. My reasoning is that given that the subject has already been mentioned a few times (by Jeppiz, then by Fearofreprisal himself in a personal attack against me, then by me in response to said attack) over at RFA, it seems pretty reasonable to assume one or more of the Arbitrators has already performed a procedural CU and, if they found anything fishy, contacted Fearofreprisal by email. It seems highly unlikely that Fearofreprisal is actively violating WP:SOCK at present, because if so one of the arbitrators would have already blocked him. I only posted the above comment about CU because I was at the time concerned that Fearofreprisal (who is violating his own TBAN, in spirit if not in word, under his current account) might be, either now or in the near future, doing the same under his other account(s). Now I think the best course of action would be one of the following:

1. he receives either a lengthy (two weeks or more) or indefinite block at the earliest opportunity for the continued personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith ("<User X> is teh Christian apolgists!!!11!") and implicit TBAN violations, and RFA continues without him;
2. the RFA goes ahead, or is rejected by ArbCom, and if he doesn't get a block/ban as a result of the RFA, this case is reopened here and he receives either a lengthy (two weeks or more) or indefinite block; or
3. the RFA goes ahead, or is rejected by ArbCom, and if he doesn't get a block/ban as a result of the RFA, this case is reopened here, and he does not get blocked, maintains editing privileges, but is placed under some further restriction than his earlier TBAN -- if the TBAN still allows him to get away with "<User X> is teh Christian apolgists!!!11!" without sanctions, then it is not having its intended effect, and needs to be supplemented.

Note that I consider option 1 to be fairly unlikely at this point, giving the ongoing ArbCom case. I find options 2 and 3 roughly equally amenable in theory, though I think given the past week or so option 3 might prove equally ineffective.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Fearofreprisal has some extraordinary conflict with this subject, Historicity of Jesus. His contributions to other subjects were indeed helpful. Maybe it is too soon to site ban, but I hope he has learned something. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Is it proper to initiate a ban !vote on a party to an ArbCom case? At the moment, it looks like the committee is likely to accept the case. Would it not be more appropriate to have the ban be tabled under the proposed motions at ArbCom? Of course I understand that it gets listed then as an ArbCom ban rather than a community ban. I'm just thinking out loud in terms of reasonable fairness of process. Blackmane (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support a Block I feel a block is more appropriate here, given the editor's other good edits I do not think a site-ban is best but a block will give the user time to think things over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a misuse of the purpose of ANI. It should be handled in arbitration. A remedy of a site ban can be proposed there at the appropriate time with the evidence to support it. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ignocrates: While, as I just stated above, I agree that an indefinite block and/or site ban as a fairly unrealistic option at the moment given the ongoing RFA, I don't really understand why you think requesting a site ban is, in and of itself (apart from the broader context of the ongoing RFA), a "misuse of the purpose of ANI". Bans can be imposed by either ArbCom or community consensus; given that the previous TBAN was imposed on this same noticeboard by the latter, why should any further restrictions be reserved for ArbCom? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of ANI is to quiet disputes, not to punish the perceived transgressions of other editors. An incident report with a header requesting a site ban is inappropriate. The header should mention the problematic behavior which is then detailed with succinct statements supported by diffs. A remedy is usually proposed only after a discussion of the evidence provided. We deal with behavior here. We are not here to speculate about the agendas, intentions, or motives of other editors. Focus on the editor's actions and not the person. Ignocrates (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ignocrates: I'm pretty sure requesting a block per the terms of a previously imposed ban that was originally put in place on ANI, is a perfectly acceptable use of ANI.

But that's not the problem. The fact is that Fearofreprisal was being extremely belligerent in his request that an IBAN be imposed on me for no reason whatsoever, and this discussion was opened as a sub-thread per WP:BOOMERANG;[179] Fearofreprisal then distorted this by unilaterally splitting another user's post off into a different thread;[180] another user then reverted him;[181] Fearofreprisal then again altered the flow of the discussion;[182] after this, you then came along almost a day later and (through no fault of your own) completely misinterpreted the discussion, because it had been altered by the user under discussion.[183] This is why the header did not mention the problematic behaviour or cite specific diffs: the problematic behaviour had been immediately evident in the above posts, until Fearofreprisal repeatedly and stubbornly altered another user's post in order to obstruct the flow of the discussion.

I think we should add the above disruption to the list of reasons why Fearofreprisal needs to be blocked and/or banned. @User:Robert McClenon: It's your text he altered (@User:DangerousPanda: it's your revert he re-reverted?) -- do you wanna bring it up at RFA, or shall I?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to explain it to me here. The arbitration case has been accepted. You will have the opportunity to present your arguments and evidence during the evidence phase of arbitration, as soon as the case pages are open. Ignocrates (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Here's are problems with what User:Robert McClenon is saying:

• This account is not a sockpuppet. It is my main account, used to post over 1000 edits. If anyone were to run a CheckUser on me, they'd find no sockpuppetry. McClenon's claims that I'm a sockpuppet are baseless lies.
• His claims of my disruptive editing are full of emotional language, but are not backed up by diffs or evidence.
• His claims that I've misused the dispute resolution process don't hold water. McClenon has himself abused ANI to make this baseless proposal that I be site banned.

Because there is a request for arbitration and a request for temporary injunctions pending before ArbCom, I'm not going to get in any protracted discussions here. This ANI should be closed, as no one has provided any evidence that I've engaged in bannable/blockable behavior. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: I corrected spelling of Mr. McClenon's name in the above comment. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Teri Heede

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

---

Hi

Blatant legal threat at [184]. Amortias (T)(C) 17:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, indefblocked. I hope they will not blacklist me from entering the US.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 17 October 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.

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Could an admin please block user 173.32.72.64? He/she keeps deleting an official laureate from Oxford's count (as referenced), plus editing the count to a lower number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiki 233 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone wants to pay me to write an article

On my talk page User:GKKelly997 is offering to pay me to write an article - something of course I won't do. I don't even have time to write my own articles! But what should we do, if anything, about this? Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's related to his Draft:Police, which started on his userpage, I'm guessing we've got a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take up his offer if you won't. But I'll insist on pre-payment before I tell him whether or not the article can be written within policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a troll. As for payment, maybe they should be advised to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. That will probably put the brakes on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, paid editing is not disallowed. But it does have to be disclosed and you're strongly discouraged from editing articles relating to what you have a COI with. But with AfC, and proper disclosure, I'd have no trouble with editors being paid to write an article. Tutelary (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

GKKelly997 has, of course, since been sent to the Phantom Zone. And your logic makes sense. Of course, full disclosure would kind of defeat the purpose of a paid article, as it would make the article a lightning rod for scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't be taking on paid jobs for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny. Paid editing should be a way to get articles that would otherwise be written through the normal process done sooner. If there is a need to avoid scrutiny, paid editing is inappropriate.--v/r - TP 20:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Could an admin please block user 173.32.72.64? He/she keeps deleting an official laureate from Oxford's count (as referenced), plus editing the count to a lower number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiki 233 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I see only two occasions: 17 October 2014‎ and 11 October 2014. That isn't disruptive. Have you tried raising the issue on the talk page or directly with the contributor? --Tóraí (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Promotional activity by Selleck Chemicals

I believe there has been an ongoing effort by the Chinese company Selleck Chemicals to promote their products on Wikipedia. Because the issue potentially spans various administrative venues including WP:COIN, WP:SPI, WP:WPSPAM, and WP:CP, I have decided to raise the issue here to keep a centralized discussion. There are multiple sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets creating multiple articles related to Selleck. I believe this is an attempt to obscure the extent of the promotional activity.

Editors involved include:

• Manyzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Weiming312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flower burial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gardobu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• William shao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Can VII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zarkr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Charcoal III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Logitake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kenzhang0405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yukileoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yanzhong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages involved include: TAPI-1, INH1, RVX 208, AEE788, Linifanib, Selumetinib, Pracinostat, RI-1(RAD51 inhibitor II), Z-FA-FMK, Voreloxin, Vosaroxin, KN-62, K-Ras(G12C) inhibitor 6, TCID (inhibitor), PYR-41, Y-320, Resminostat, Selleck Chemicals, LLC, Selleck Chemicals, Src inhibitor, SKI II, Rho kinase inhibitor, Rho inhibitor, RI-1(RAD51 inhibitor), Repsox, RVX-208, Rigosertib, Pimasertib, KRX-0401, PD123319

Some of the pages have been deleted as promotional and some have been deleted as outright copyright violations. Selleck Chemicals sells products that are useful tools in pharmaceutical and academic research. Some of the articles that these editors have created meet Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria, in my opinion, but some may not. I would like some uninvolved editors and/or administrators to take a look and help determine, first of all, whether there are any remaining copyright violations, and secondly whether any of the pages should be nominated for deletion. I have also started a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manyzz. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was involved in deleting large chunks of content and/or whole pages for some of those copyvio (and I just nuked another one). Definitely need more eyes (usually even a google-search of key phrases is enough and/or looking at any selleckchem.com cited URLs). I think Manyzz was the one that caught my eye initially, but the others do seem related in various ways too. We're (edit conflict)ing here. I'll respond to TParis's questions below. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you break it down a bit more in layman's terms what is actually happening? For instance, I looked at AEE788 and I see the word "novel" which obviously needs to be removed but the rest if very technical language. Is there something else there that needs to be addressed?--v/r - TP 20:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The pages were created by mostly copy-pasting content from selleckchem.com pages, sometimes also with sentences/paragraphs lifted from abstracts of other medical literature (some of which was also/already copied to the selleckchem pages). The chemicals might or might not meet WP:GNG, but the content itself is often hopelessly tainted. The refs were mostly primary scientific literature, which fails WP:MEDRS and doesn't help meet GNG. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with the potential copyright issues and with the sockpuppetry are the primary administrator actions that might be needed here (deletion, blocking). The technical and editorial concerns don't require admin tools, but admins can certainly suggest procedures and venues for handling these issues. The broader issue of persistent well-organized paid advocacy is of concern here as well. In terms of my editorial concerns, it is the potentially biased content - cherry picking primary sources to make the product look better or more valuable ("the content itself is often hopelessly tainted", as DMacks succinctly puts it). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Most of these are notable subjects, and MEDRES does not apply outside clinical medicine; in particular it does not apply to chemistry. We normally consider any chemical substance with multiple references in the literature notable. Nor does it even apply in all cases to medicine: proof of a clinical trial can be from a single research report. Chemists consider per-reviewed journal articles as reliable source unless proven otherwise. (And one can generally establish the reliability of a particular paper, and its importance, by looking at the references to it in the literature.) (the Medres special requirements for sourcing is intended to prevent the use of out of date or unrepresentative publications for citing clinical articles, which is a different problem.) Some of the links to Selkirk are even conceivably useful links to a list of the literature on a subject. Manufacturers and distributors data sheets on chemicals although not peer reviewed are used widely in the academic world, and I presume in the commercial world also, and I do not think they are necessarily unacceptable documentation. I mention that "novel" can normally be specifically cited to the literature, and is actually a very weak claim--what is important is the usefulness--the synthesis of every one of the millions of chemical compounds is" novel."

What does bother me is that the firm is not the manufacturer or the primary distributor of these compounds, but purely a regional distribution for Prier and I think other manufacturers; using them as a source in highly promotional and overly selective emphasis--one would normally prefer the manufacturer's sources. The overall pattern is of course totally unacceptable. But such blatant misuse of WP is very easy to detect. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• selleckchem.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Should we blacklist this site? MER-C 01:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky Senate election

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.

---

Unregistered editor Special:Contributions/74.128.213.87's edits to the page United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 have been increasingly aggressive, accusing any opposing editors of being vandals/trolls and using my real name multiple times here and here, as well as vandalizing my own userpage several times. I may be wrong on the original issue, including Libertarian David Patterson in the election infobox, but this user's tactics are inexcusable and it is my opinion the IP address should be blocked. Nevermore27 03:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you did not notify the user I have done so for you. I also warned them about making legal threats. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:28, 18 October 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.

Thomas Walker Lynch

• Thomas Walker Lynch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Natural number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since this user first began editing at Natural number and Talk:Natural number he has been exceedingly disruptive. He has been deleting other users' comments, editing his own after they've been responded to, failing to accept correction and instruction from others, making false accusations and editing in a manner which is just generally disruptive. He had already driven me from the page with his overwhelming presence there, and I was content to simply ignore him from now on. Then, I logged in this morning to see that he's made a point of trying to drag me back into it by filing a DRN request. That was the final straw that convinced me to bring this here.

Thomas' disruptive edits (not an exhaustive list)

• Thomas deleting other's comments #1
• Thomas deleting other's comments #2
• Thomas deleting other's comments #3 (and admitting to it in the edit summary, after he'd been warned about this behavior twice)
• Thomas deleting other's comments #4
• Thomas deleting other's comments #5
• JRSpriggs warning on Thomas' talk page
• Name calling and false accusations
• more name calling and modifying my comments on his talk page
• Thomas making over 100 edits in 2 weeks to the Natural number talk page
• Thomas claiming I'd deleted his comments when I actually moved them

• The removal in question
• the move in question

Note the time stamps on those two edits. The cut from one page directly preceeded the paste to another. By the time Thomas claimed I'd deleted his comments and never moved them, he'd had more than 12 hours in which to verify that they did in fact exist at the targeted page.

 

Warnings he's received and replied to, but not heeded

• The DRN request filed by Thomas in which every other editor is against him

Note the misspelling of my username: He has used demeaning and patronizing variations of my username on a number of occasions. I'd have ignored it as a mistake, except that he's also shown several times that he has no difficulty getting it right when he has to.

• JRSpriggs warning Thomas on his talk page about deleting other users' comments and wikilawyering
• D. Lazard reverting Thomas' deletion of other users' posts & about using the talk page as a forum
• D. Lazard warning Thomas about using the talk page as a forum again
• Thomas' page is full of warnings and instruction, most of which have gone unheeded, even when he replies to them

At first, I assumed that English was a second language, but I saw edit after edit lacking the sort of idiosyncracies indicative of a non-native speaker. All the while, he continue to use verbage and syntax which is dense and difficult to parse. Taken as a whole, Thomas' comments on the talk page appear disjointed and indicative of a crank. This is further evinced by his personal website, which proudly flies almost every "this guy is a crank!" red flag, from numerous self-published books to pseudo-scientific naval gazing to a laundry list of patents.

I've grown sick of this. He's been insulting others, attempting to opress criticism of his editing, and is insistantly pushing his own fringe ideas without regards for consensus. His participation on that article has done little measurable good for the article and caused an immense amount of strife. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas making over 100 edits in 2 weeks to the Natural number talk page

To be precise:

• Found 161 edits by User:Thomas Walker Lynch on Talk:Natural number (21.55% of the total edits made to the page)

--50.53.38.50 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

got to love it, apparently some people will go to great lengths to make wikipedia to fall in line with their external publications, and not have to say "counting numbers are for counting". In 30 years in the areas of applied arithmetic I've never seen so many people acting like children. It is little wonder they don't use their own names. Tell you what, put your name on this one and I will reply to it in detail. Note one of the edits I'm accuse of for name calling says: "the current article appears to be confusing counting numbers with natural numbers". LOL I'm sorry it is hard to take this very seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Walker Lynch (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas Walker Lynch:: If you want to denigrate the site, don't participate in it, because such hypocrisy comes across as a childish tantrum. Removing other's posts is nothing short of vandalism, which is far from grown-up behavior. Calling people "b******s" is a childish and bullying personal attack, which is expressly forbidden by WP:No Personal Attacks and basic maturity.

In addition to civility being a cornerstone of this site, verifiability is equally important. That means citing published ("external") academic sources instead of making unreferenced claims. We don't know who you are and have no reason to assume you're in any position to be trusted. Published academic works have been edited and peer-reviewed by professionals in relevant fields, and so can be trusted. If you don't know that last bit and can't appreciate the difference between that and what someone posts on a talk page on Wikipedia, then you've clearly never been involved in academia and shouldn't be a source for the article.

Now, if you want to politely cite and summarize academic sources regarding a particular position, that's fine. But your behavior is atrocious and will result in a topic ban (if not an outright block) if you don't drop the attitude. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas posted a quote by Stephen Kleene, so I did a Google search for the quote and found a master's thesis by one Thomas Walker Lynch. Thomas has been finding very interesting sources. In particular, he found a quote about Peano from a French history of mathematics, and he went to the trouble of transcribing it and getting two English translations. --50.53.38.50 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about content. This is about behavior. If you're implying that he's not a crank, I think his website would beg to differ. Having an education does not prevent one from being a crackpot. He may, in fact, not be one. He may be a respected "applied arithmetician" (though I have never seen the phrase used outside of elementary school books). Even so, his behavior here is unacceptable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what, put your name on this one and I will reply to it in detail.
— User:Thomas Walker Lynch

One can't help but wonder what exactly you meant by this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What he means - and it's consistent with other comments he's made - is that he won't respond to any editor who does not disclose their real name. With that in mind,, Thomas Walker Lynch, your position is untenable. Wikipedia does not require that anyone shed their anonymity when they edit or post here. Indeed, asking people their real name is akin to wanting to out them, which is strictly prohibited and blockable. So, I strongly suggest you come back to this topic and explain your conduct based on the allegations against you. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of the accusations, many of them are accurate and troubling. So, if you want to avoid possible sanctions, it would be best for you to defend yourself. A note to other editors here: let's skip the name-calling, please (crank). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend the term to cause hurt feelings, but to summarize my opinions of the man in a way which is (to me, at least) markedly less insulting than actually describing them. If it bothers you I will stop using the term, but I stand by my comparison of Thomas to this particular group of people, and I am not the only one to draw that comparison. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not whether it "bothers" me. It's uncivil. It's hard to take seriously your comments about Thomas's incivility when you descend to the same level. And others do it, too, doesn't help you. So, it's simple. Just stop doing it, directly or indirectly.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Abuse on the Gamergate page

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

---

It doesn't matter whether my suggestion will be upheld or not, but it's worrysome that we can't even have a discussion about it. This seems like abuse. I can't contact the person.

Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Restarting_.22Although_these_concerns_proved_unfounded.22

http://i.imgur.com/NW7T8xE.png

--Butter and Cream (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As an editor on that page, the issue whether the accusation against the Kotaku editor is validated or not has been a subjected repeated frequently in the talk page archives, and pointed out repeatedly that all reliable sources assert the refuting of the accusation is likely true (and editors have had to defend that point several times from IPs and other new editors). It's not a point that needs repeat debate. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"pointed out repeatedly that all reliable sources assert the refuting of the accusation is likely true"

But all we have are statements from the accused and Totilo? All the respectable newspapers simply quote Totilo. This isn't how proving something works. --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Which sources like New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, the Independant, have all accepted as true. There is also no "review" that is the center of this accusation. As such, for Wikipedia's strict sourcing requirements, we take the stance that the accusation was disproven. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any bit of evidence that they have "accepted it as true", instead of having just quoted what Totilo wrote? There is no need for a review score to exist, but only an article. --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

They are now repeatedly close-warring it, while I'm having a discussion with a third person. And you condone this? --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed ad nauseam; perhaps a section should be added to the FAQ, but it is time-wasting and disruptive to repeatedly deal with repeated attempts at relitigating long-settled issues involving reliable sources dismissing allegations of wrongdoing as unfounded. I note that the above editor ran straight to WP:ANI for their third-ever edit on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But I have valid points you have not approached? All you do is close the section and tell me to zip it because "I've been proven wrong". --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't yet another place to rehash your argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a place to declare that you try to avoid having a reasonable talk about this. Now another person has appeared who suggested we use the exact words the sources used. And you still disagree. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn, targeted because of disproved claims that she slept with a games journalist in return for positive coverage. That's from The Guardian, one of the most respected news organizations on the planet. Are we done here yet? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not the title of that interview. And that is an interview. Now they are truly edit-warring on the talk page. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You've been told by multiple editors that you are wrong. Let it go.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 18 October 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 Ryulong is edit warring on a talk page

User:Ryulong is closing a section again and again, even though many people have joined and the discussion has increased.

For example, user User:Titanium_Dragon suggested we use the words the sources have used, instead of rephrases.

But Ryulong is going nuts. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple users other than myself have closed the thread he started after he reopened it after it was archived by the bots in the first place. Titanium Dragon, whose hands are not clean in this whole affair either, vaguely agreeing with Butter and Cream does not change anything. The content dispute has been dealt with time and time again. Butter and Cream will not drop the stick. It is clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia but instead to continue the external dispute on Gamergate when Wikipedia has not yet summarily dealt with them as Reddit and 4chan have before.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No else but you has been closing it. We are discussing whether to use the exact words the source used. Don't paint us as some boogeymen. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranoff did it as well. Let it go. Drop the stick. Move on. You get the point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

He did, once, at the beginning, influenced by you. I wouldn't call that edit-warring like your 50 closes. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should take the hint already then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to edit-war, and the reporting editor is at least as culpable as the person they're reporting. Furthermore, they're edit-warring to reopen a thread which has been repeatedly closed because the editor has been repeatedly told that they are rehashing already-settled issues and need to drop the WP:STICK — as discussed directly above this ANI section. I suggest that Butter and Cream should be, at the very least, warned for disruption if not blocked — new editors don't generally start ANI threads within their first three edits and I suggest that they are likely not unfamiliar with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Because I undid his closings? You're also guilty as I am, then. There have been multiple people joining in with new suggestions. You and Ryu just vehemontly want to color and word it how you wish. Looking at your history, you have both been long active on the GamerGate page. You must have bulldozed your version through. There has never been a concensus. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not the only people who have edited the article to the state where it is now. Masem has also told you exactly what NorthBySouth and I have. Let it go. Drop the stick. Move on. Take the hint. Etc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem is impartial. He lets people talk. You don't. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because I should not have to sit through an umpteenth thread on the same subject raised by a brand new account who has done nothing on Wikipedia except attempt to push a point of view that is not supported by anything or anyone other than Titanium Dragon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I bet you have forced your way through by just being stubborn. There has never been concensus on this article. You have just forced your way. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the overwhelming number of folks have been against you, Ryulong, and many of them were not, contrary to your claims, SPAs or new users, your claims of consensus on this issue are simply false. Indeed, the DRN which you deigned to participate in, and the present mediation, both seem to only indicate there are really only a handful of users on "your side". You have been warned by folks about closing discussions inappropriately on the page previously, and for trying to remove the NPOV tag from the article while it was undergoing dispute resolution. The RSs don't seem to support your point of view either, as noted in the DRN. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no overwhelming number. It's nameless new accounts repeating the same shit over and over and you giving them the time of day. The NPOV tag was unwarranted. I explicitly stated I was not agreeing to the DRN or the MedCom request because of the forum shopping that cannot be solved in those places. These discussions have been had time and time again. If anything is to be done in this situation, it's that the English Wikipedia needs to ban all of the accounts who have in the past two months done nothing but contribute to the dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This belongs on the 3RR page, not here; Ryulong has reverted talk:GamerGate at least five times today: [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] From a quick perusal of the history. The number may be higher, but they may not have been listed as such; that was just ones I found with the line "reverted" in the edit. Is it alright if I move this over? Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

By all means. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Because an SPA should get the hint already. And you should still be banned from editing the topic area anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Can this and the AN3 thread be closed already? Butter and Cream is indefinitely blocked and tTtanium Dragon is just digging through my history on this project for things to vaguely link to his report so he can get me blocked. He has seriously linked to my old arbitration case twice to point to a proposed principle that I don't even think was ever again addressed in the case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits and Statements of User:Obenritter

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

---

I was going to let this go, but after reviewing some user page material on User:Obenritter I am very concerned that the editing patterns of this user, as well as statements made on the editor’s own user page are in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy and outwardly show someone who is not willing to work with other editors. My contact with this user began here [190] when a question was asked about the copyright status of foreign language translated text. The user was invited to comment here [191]. In response, the user posted a rant on my talk page, bringing up personal details and other items unconnected with the article topic. The posting was eventually removed after I realized it was a pretty blatant personal attack [192] [193] [194] [195]. I later discovered that after the talk page discussion had been resolved, the user posted a message on another talk page that I was a “jerk”, among other things. [196] . The final item which inspired me to come here was Obenritter’s user page in which the user states: If you elect to engage or challenge something I have edited or contributed, be prepared for the onslaught. My nature forces me to expose stupidity and refute those who masquerade as actual editors on subjects when they are often times mere neophytes. If you're correct, I will concede; if you are not however, I expect reciprocity and for you to yield accordingly. If you do not, you have my eternal disdain and can expect to be treated like a leper. [197] These are not the postings of someone who is here to work with other editors but rather someone with serious issues about WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV. I would ask an unrelated administrator take a close look at this user’s conduct and offer help and advice where needed. With that said I plan no further contact with this user and have removed the original article from my watchlist. -OberRanks (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as either a boomerang situation SEE or no action. A bit of academic tough guy posturing on the user page, but looks like a valuable European history contributor. Carrite (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Ernst-Heinrich Schmauser. No, I certainly don't see a boomerang here: OberRanks was (essentially) right about the copyright complaint (it was technically a violation, though one that could be healed through proper source attribution), and Oberritter was way out of line in his response. Will block him if he does that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like we're well on the way to chasing off another valuable academic expert, so everyone involved needs to take a bow for that. I hate this place sometimes... Carrite (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think he was right. In order to prove copyright infringement, the source needs to be shown, he didn't show what source the text was supposedly copyrighted, meanwhile Obenritter showed what sources he was using, so no, doesn't look like a copyright issue. Yes, ObenRitter conduct wasn't right, throwing around PA's and such is never okay, no matter what credentials a user may or may not have.KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This was a translation from the de.wiki article to the en.wiki? If the addition of the text had been accompanied by proper attribution of the de.wiki text (as is required) this this storm in a teacup would have been avoided. In addition, I think Obenritter reaction was OTT and overly sensitive. But this is the internet and that is why we have a policy on assuming good faith.

OberRanks didn't show good faith. His/her first assumption was that this was a copyright violation (and, yes, technically it was because of the text wasn't attributed).

I would be forgiving of Obenritter for neglecting to properly attribute the de.wiki text due to the work he/she put into translating it and the value he/she brought to this wiki through that work. I would be less forgiving of OberRanks for not showing good faith (and not, for example, simply approaching Obenritter to ask where the text came from). That approach to others' contributions is the kind of breach of policy that demoralizes valuable contributors and so has longer lasting implications for the project.

My recommendation would be for OberRanks to apologise to Obenritter for his mistake. And for Obenritter to make a dummy edit attributing the de.wiki. --Tóraí (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So couching a sweeping generalization (and a false one at that) under pseudo-conciliatory rhetoric of a patronizing nature by OberRanks is permissible but a response to that is not allowable? The original German article had 6 citations whereas my English translation (while incorporating a significant amount of the original German) ended with 21 citations and additionally academically substantiated content. That alone should have made it abundantly clear that this was not a case where the article was plagiarized. OberRanks obviously ignored these facts which caused my unpleasant vituperation. For that I apologize. Had I know that a disclaimer regarding the translation was necessary that too would have been added. I would inform OberRanks of my intention to mention him, but he has unequivocally stated above that he will not have contact with me so I am about to break another rule posting here without informing him/her of such. Perhaps I just don't belong here. Sorry for the trouble folks. --Obenritter (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Its unfortunate the way this escalated the way it did. It was not meant to accuse, attack, nor was bringing this here an attempt to get anyone in trouble but rather point out possible flaws in dealing with other editors. Obenritter is obviously a highly educated editor who would be welcome on Wikipedia. Apologies to him and all others. With the article translation itself resolved, I think the discussion can be marked as resolved. -OberRanks (talk) 17:52, 18 October 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.

Insulting summary

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 Dentren made an insulting summary in [198]. Admin intervention may be required to delete the insult according to WP:AVOIDYOU, WP:NPA, WP:ESDONTS, etc. --Keysanger (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Reasonably certain that this edit summary does not meet WP:CRD#2, or any other revdel criterion. I don't think there's any grounds for administrative action here. This looks like a content dispute being shoehorned into an ANI report. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. Nothing in that edit-summary is even close to a) being worried about, or b) coming to ANI about the panda ₯’ 15:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Describing another editor's contributions as being a "big POV-push earlier this year" is combative. I will advise Dentren to avoid making those kinds of summaries. --Tóraí (talk) 22:11, 17 October 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.

Kenfree

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

---

In RT (TV network), the user started a crusade against mentioning of disinformation in the lede. After several earlier attempts to remove the info or to move it elsewhere which were all reverted (not by me) they have written an ultimatum at the talk page saying that if in 24h nobody brings in new sources they like (they do not like the existing sources) they start reverting the paragraph does not matter what. Indeed, despite my attempts to explain them that edit-warring is not a standard dispute resolution avenue, they started reverting after 24h and are already at two reverts. They believe that edit warring constitutes 3 reverts in 24h and are apparently prepared to this third revert. Whereas the article needs in some attention, this is certainly not the way to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Peculiar editing history. Have any other users attacked the page in a similar way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose its technically edit warring it just isnt a breech of the 3-revert rule. The statement is a clear intent of edit warring so might be worth throwing it to WP:ANEW. Amortias (T)(C) 17:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor who overtly and expressly stays just this side of 3RR is an edit warrior trying to game the system. If no one here takes care of it, you could report him to the edit warring page, which I think is WP:3RR, though I'm not certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN3RR and WP:ANEW are one and the same. Amortias (T)(C) 17:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The solution would be to align more closely to the sources provided. You could for example say who says RT engages in "disinformation".

Otherwise, I don't see any case for administrator intervention here just yet. The relevant policies are verifiability and neutral point of view. If you can't evidence the statement in terms of those policies, without asking for muscle from ANI or appealing to a local consensus, then I suggest you may have lost already. --Tóraí (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not really win or lose here, because I do not care whether disinformation is mentioned in the lede or not. What I see, however, is that we get a new editor (less than 50 edits since 2011) starting a crusade, with a bunch of other editors (not me) reverting them.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Never have I seen such a blatant case of "shooting the messenger." I have raised editorial issues of verifiability and NPOV till the cows come home, and have essentially asked two questions, which neither Ymblanter nor any of the other editors involved has been willing to answer: 1) How do the citations provided corroborate the claim that RT practices disinformation, or is even accused of doing so by any credible, objective source? 2) Why does this baseless allegation belong in the lede in the first place, given that we have a rather large "Criticism" section which would seem the appropriate setting? Rather than respond to these vital questions, which always reference WP policy guidelines, Ymblanter and company prefer to kill the messenger. Perhaps, Ymblanter, since you refuse to respond to the above questions on the talk page, where I have patiently awaited such explanation, you could provide the answers here?? I think the fact that this spurious allegation finds a place in the lede, but the fact that RT was nominated for an Emmy award in 1910 is nowhere to be found there or elsewhere in this article, demonstrates the unfitness of those claiming administrative responsibility for this RT page. Killing the messenger is easy enough, but engaging in editorial self-scrutiny is apparently too much to ask. Oh yes, the fact that I have only fifty edits to my credit means that my editorial efforts are suspect? That I insist on Wikipedia's editorial standards means I am on a 'crusade?' I can only hope that the mediation I have requested will put an end to this endless calumny, and restore a sense of good faith and sanity to this page's editorial process.Kenfree (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned right above your reply, I do not care whether disinformation is mention in the lede or not. You can also easily check that I have a dozen of edits in the article, many of which are vandalism reversal. For this reason, the fact that you talk about "my party" just demonstrates your battleground behavior. If you can not convince others of your viewpoint (which seems to be the case here, since your edit get consistently reverted), seek mediation. Promising to start edit-warring in 24h is not mediation, and wikilawyering is not the way to solve the issue, and in addition is highly unusual for an editor with less than 50 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your partisanship could not be clearer: Each of my edits has followed careful explanation by me of the editorial principles involved. The reversions by the other "party" are simply undoing my work, WITHOUT INTELLIGIBLE EXPLANATION or reference to editing principles or addressing the issues raised in the edit summaries. Yet it is I, and not they, whose behavior you have presumed to make a topic of discussion here. Shame on you! I have no idea what you mean by "wikilawyering." You sent me a notification that you were setting up a post on this page and invited me to come here to comment, so when I do so, I am now "wikilawyering?" Whatever....Kenfree (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, your repeated references to the fact that I have less than 50 edits to my credit smacks of elitism,surely a quality surely inimical to the spirit of Wikipedia. Do the standards for verification and NPOV change or become reinterpreted once someone crosses a certain threshold of editing activity? I seriously doubt it. These standards are not rocket science. Your continued avoidance of the actual issues involved here, the unwillingness to apply the normal standard of verifiability to this derogatory allegation in the lead, is the real issue, and you are just as guilty of this negligence as those who, without comment, continue to undo my editing, feeling no need to explain themselves, despite the fact that my edits are all explained, and further details elaborated in the talk page. Kenfree (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter - play the ball, not the man. --Tóraí (talk) 18:45, 18 October 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:Titanium Dragon — continues to make unfounded accusations about living people

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

---

I have to once again request that User:Titanium Dragon be topic-banned from any and all discussions related to the Gamergate controversy. They have once again made entirely-unfounded negative claims about Gamergate opponents.

This user has been the subject of a previous topic ban but was unbanned and warned. They cannot possibly claim a lack of knowledge or understanding of the issue.

In this diff on the talk page, the user makes a statement which amounts to an accusation that the death threats issued against Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu — which are impeccably sourced and the subject of international news — have been fabricated for attention.

“ We really need to be careful about this death threat stuff; no one has been charged with anything as far as I know, there are concerns about their authenticity and seriousness, and in the past people have made them against themselves for various messed up reasons. ”

“ We ''really'' need to be careful about this death threat stuff; no one has been charged with anything as far as I know, there are concerns about their authenticity and seriousness, and in the past [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/meg-lanker-simons-hoax-university-wisconsin_n_3210326.html people have made them against themselves] for [[victim playing|various]] [[Persecutory delusion|messed up]] [[WP:HOAX|reasons]] ”

Further down:

“ ...many folks involved (on all sides) have reasons to lie about being the subject of persecution, or simply exaggerate in a play for sympathy. ”

You will note the inline and wikilinks — linking to a story about someone who fabricated a threat and to negative statements of "victim playing," "persecutory delusion" and "hoaxing." The intent here is crystal-clear despite the attempt at obfuscation — Titanium Dragon is claiming (or "suggesting" via an impossibly-loaded question) that the three people in question made up their own death threats to gain attention. These claims are entirely unsourced, amount to a criminal accusation, are a blatant violation of BLP and have absolutely no place on a Wikipedia talk page. It has nothing whatsoever to do with constructive discussion of article improvement.

This user has shown a total inability to respect living people who are opposed to the Gamergate controversy and a continued obsession with depicting such persons negatively. They have received every opportunity to contribute constructively and in a manner that abides by Wikipedia policy and human decency. They have repeatedly refused to do so and as such, they need to be indefinitely prohibited from editing any article related to it or them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Given that this time there can be no question about the formal validity of the discretionary sanctions procedure, I will re-impose that topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This nomination was made in bad faith, something of which this user has a long history, along with misrepresenting and outright lying about what other users say.

First off, this wasn't directed at any one side in particular, as I specifically noted in the text.

Secondly, I will note that you have worked to keep the harassment of folks by the various anti-Gamergate folks out of the article as much as possible, such as, say, the mailing of a syringe to a reporter, which was an actual, physical death threat on top of the numerous electronic ones he claimed to have received.

The problem is that in many cases, these are being self-reported and being uncritically repeated by the media. The Escapist got in trouble for this as relates to one of the people involved in the present day controversy, and actually issued a formal apology for failing to verify the claims of harassment; said claims of harassment resulted in the harassment of users of a messageboard that Zoe Quinn had accused of harassing her. Thus, we need to be very careful when we are repeating claims like this, because it can result in real world harassment - we know for a fact that many of the folks who have spoken out against these folks have been harassed. John Bain was called a misogynist for stating that he was against censorship and invalid DMCA takedown requests on YouTube. The Fine Young Capitalists were hacked and attacked after they came forward about a dispute they had with Zoe Quinn.

In this case, the issue in question was that Anita Sarkeesian was scheduled to go to a talk at a university in Utah; an anonymous death threat was issued, and the police and FBI investigated and found that it was similar to the others that she had received and that it was not credible - that there was no threat to the public, and as a result, no alert was ever issued at the university. However, many other secondary news sources continued to talk about the death threat as if it were credible, even though it was not.

And this is a problem. Wikipedia is not a news source; we're an encyclopedia. We are supposed to report reliable, accurate, well-sourced information. If sources are yelling about something which was found to be not credible days before they published their articles, that indicates a lack of fact checking on their part, and we need to be careful to try and source this stuff reliably and accurately; the FBI and police are going to be ideal sources for this sort of thing, because they have to deal with them directly and make judgments about whether or not these things are actually a threat to the public. Anonymous death threats are, unfortunately, not terribly uncommon, and while we may report about hoaxes, it is important for us not to present hoaxes as reality.

That's the real issue here. There is no evidence that anyone in question is in any real life danger. The FBI and police do not seem to feel that these threats are credible, but that they are hoaxes - people just yelling and screaming at each other without any actual intent to do anything. We have no idea who is even making these threats in many cases. No charges have been filed against anyone in real life as far as I know.

Moreover, we have issues with selective coverage of this sort of thing; as noted, a writer for Breitbart apparently received a syringe in the mail, and has claimed to have been subjected to "double digit" numbers of death threats, but, again, we have no evidence that any of these things are serious (though the syringe is pretty messed up, on the other hand, while other people have reported on him getting it, ultimately it all comes back to him claiming he got it - and as far as I can tell, it hasn't even been reported to the police). How are we supposed to report on this stuff? We have really big issues with reliability here given that many of these reports are coming from the people themselves, and they paint their adversaries as terroristic monsters.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a clearinghouse for this sort of thing. We need to be cautious when we're reporting about living persons, and that includes anything - positive, negative, or neutral.

Now, because North is yet again attempting to abuse the rules in order to try and get someone banned who he doesn't like because he is an effective advocate, I present to you what I put together for an ANI about him a while ago but haven't yet filed. I feel there should probably be some consequences for his ill behavior. This is a clear-cut case of WP:CRYBLP. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted another lengthy screed by Titanium Dragon from this page, in which he was making reverse accusations against NorthBySouthBaranov and explained his opinions on the content dispute in great length. Titanium: You are topic-banned, as of now. That means you are not allowed to continue fighting over this topic, including on this page. The only thing you are allowed to do is to appeal your topic ban, if that's what you want to do. If you wish to do that, keep the content debate and the accusations against other editors out of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: Well, did you read the above text? How was this a BLP violation? Did I make any specific claims about any living persons which were not backed by reliable sources? I said that we need to be careful about these things, and I cited sources. I did not claim that anyone was lying about it, but I noted that it is a potential issue because people have lied about similar things in the past and that even now we're having issues where we have sources which are reporting the discredited death threats as being serious things. I did not claim that Sarkeesian or anyone else was lying about it, and indeed in my post noted that we needed to be careful about these claims from everyone involved (I specifically said either "both sides" or "all sides"). Given the history of some sources in reporting material from a single source without outside validation (as I noted, The Escapist issued an apology for this article, noting that "Update: This post has been edited to correctly assert that the claims were made by the accuser and have not been confirmed by another party."; as a result of that, they changed their reporting policy about such matters). Given that, as The Escapist noted, those associated with a message board accused of harassing Zoe Quinn themselves became the target of considerable harassment, this is a very real issue. As is noted by WP:BLP, it is important that we get this stuff RIGHT the first time, and that we don't mess things up, and this sort of thing is precisely the reason why it is important - people attack people over stuff that happens online. Indeed, that's what this whole debacle is. Urging caution because death threats are sensationalist but oftentimes not found to be credible by the police or other authorities is entirely correct, and well in line with WP:BLP - indeed, to not do so would be a violation of said policy, along with WP:HARASS. Given that people are being harassed for this stuff, it is a big deal. Heck, I've been harassed by folks for editing these articles on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Come off it. It's impossibly obvious what you intended by what you wrote. Despite having been repeatedly warned, you chose to write a talk page post that made tendentious accusations against people who you perceive as your enemies. A good-faith discussion of vile and vicious death threats that were reported on the front page of The New York Times and media outlets around the world does not include wording and links that plant the entirely-unsourced intimation that the victims of those threats fabricated them for personal gain or out of mental illness, and it does not include the statement that people have "reason to lie about being the subject of persecution." Just because you couch it in the form of a loaded question doesn't make it any more acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, there is the issue of WP:HOAX, as I noted. Wikipedia may report on hoaxes, but it does not perpetuate them; if something is a hoax (like a fake bomb threat, a fake death threat, ect.) then we need to report it as such. We need to be careful not to report hoaxes as real things. This means, again, waiting for independent verification, listening to the authorities, ect. When someone claims something serious like this, we need to make sure we're not participating in spreading a hoax and creating additional fear and panic. In the case of the Utah thing, the threat was determined to be non-credible by the FBI and the police, and as they noted it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian had received. No one has been arrested in conjunction with any of these things, and when law enforcement authorities say that there is no threat to the public, they are generally the most reliable source on the subject matter. Even after this, though, some sources still report on the threat as though it was credible, clearly not paying attention to what the FBI and police said, despite that information being readily available. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

TD, it is utterly outrageous to imply that "non-credible" death threats are the same as lies invented by the very people the threat were directly at. To say that the threats are not credible, is simply to conclude that there is little likelihood that anyone really intends to carry them out. It's just idiots mouthing off or trying to intimidate. You are continually twisting this to imply that the terms "hoax" and "non credible" suggest that the victims have created the suppose threats! This is completely unwarranted and frankly disgraceful. Paul B (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

...and a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The notion that these threats are a hoax is a significant BLP violation, not to mention a violation of RS. Also, Titanium Dragon is continuing to post these screeds even though he is already topic-banned. Can we just get rid of this obvious troll already?? 2607:FB90:704:938C:C9D:4B21:F6A3:A960 (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How is the notion that these threats are a hoax a BLP violation? What living person are we saying caused the hoax (assuming there is one)? Do we name names? Stating the idea that someone faked these is not a BLP violation. If we were to state that someone in particular did them, without reliable sources to back up that statement, then we would. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it maligns the ones who made the claims of being threatened. Unless there is solid evidence that someone lied, you can't call them a liar. It's a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Except you're not calling them a liar. You can have a hoax without the person being targeted by the hoax being a liar. The recent Emma Watson Nude threats after her appearance for UNWomen supporting HeForShe was a Hoax. That wouldn't mean that Emma Watson would be a liar if she were afraid of it. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A hoax is, by definition, a lie perpetrated by someone. Unless there's definitive proof of a hoax, that term is a BLP violation and should not be used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The user in question specifically suggested that they were fabricated by the recipients of the threats themselves either for self-promotion or out of mental illness. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A bright-light-obvious BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to get a clue what this is about is certainly not easy from Wikipedia. Luckily, CNN explains it here.[199] I still don't know much about this Gamergate, but I know about topic bans. If Titanium Dragon has violated a topic ban, then he needs to be blocked immediately. And if it's a repeat violation, two weeks miniumum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 18 October 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 behavior

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

---

Hello, Sorry that it has come to this point, but I require assistance with a user (User:LRD NO) who is hounding me and has been changing almost every single edit I make on Wikipedia. It has become so excessive and it is seriously disruptive to my experience here on Wikipedia. I have been getting along fine for years, and am an auto-patrolled user. I have contributed countless articles to the website but I am seriously tired and annoyed by the aforementioned user who has been revising almost every single edit I make on Wikipedia as of late. The user's handle of the English language is not better than mine, nor is their knowledge of the subject matter as evolved as mine, yet he acts as if his way of wording sentences is superior to mine, and is acting as if he has some type of authority over me. The user has been revising all of my contributions as of late, which are not necessarily beneficial to Wikipedia and is seriously infringing on my user experience.

I know the user is tracking me (probably using a bot) and I feel this is over the top and exaggerated behavior. I have raised the issue with the user in the past, in which case he denies any wrong doing. We have also had a dispute based on the same issue before. The user was asked to give me space, which was ignored since he continues to crowd me and change my contributions, sometimes only minutes after my edits are saved. I am seriously tired of it and would like for this user to leave me alone. It is infringing on my experience here on the site and has me considering leaving the site for good, since I do not enjoy my contributions being altered in this systematic fashion, nor do I find it justified behavior at all. I hope someone may possibly review this users behavior and hopefully get this parasitic behavior to stop.

I hope to no longer be tracked, so I may go about making my contributions to the site, without having every single edit I make changed by this disruptive user. Thank you in advance for your help with the matter and I hope that this can be resolved in a civil manner. Should any examples be needed, all you need to do is review my contributions and you will see this user has been badgering me and altering almost every edit I make for some time now. There are also previous conversations which have been removed from the users talk page. Should that be necessary for review as well. Kind regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

Hi Subzzee, couple of things that might help progress this a bit quicker, if you can provide diffs to show these calims it would make any intervening admins job so much easier. It's quite possible they are just viewing your contributions (something anyone can do) by searching for your name in the contributions link on the top of each page. You might also want to break the text above up to make it easier to read. Amortias (T)(C) 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi I can list diffs, there are so many of them, But, if I must I will do my best to list all of them. I think it is important to recognize the scope of what is actually taking place to fully understand how excessive it is. I will go ahead and try and list as many as I can conjure up. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

5-6 should be more than enough to show a pattern of beahaviour that can be evaluated. Amortias (T)(C) 22:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Examples: [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205]. It goes on and on and on, but I will stick with six examples as you requested. Thanks. (Subzzee (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

Response

The edits were done in accordance to policies, guidelines, project consensus and convention, and the reason were clearly explained to Subzzee in his talk page[206] and a summary indicating the reason involved were included with every edit. He was advised, a few times, to bring it up at the relevant policy/guidelines/project pages if he disagreed with them and wanted a second opinion but did not do so. Despite being asked to do so on a few occasions, Subzzee has yet to give a reason why he should not be subjected to policies, guidelines, community consensus and convention (PGCC for the rest of the post).

Contrary to the editor's claims, I have not been revising "almost every single edit", only those with clear violations. Take, for example, the most recent edits.[207][208]. The edits violates WP:SURNAME, WP:OVERLINK, WP:PEACOCK and the necessary changes were accordingly.

The last revision by the editor was:

Serhat Çakmak is a product of the famed Ajax Youth Academy. In 2014 he left the club to join Trabzonspor signing a 3-year contract with the Turkish club having raised interest from the likes of Beşiktaş J.K., Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray as well, but opting for the club from Trabzon instead. Following the departure of Trabzonspor manager Hami Mandıralı, Çakmak was cut from the squad under newly appointed manager Vahid Halilhodžić, returning to Amsterdam and joining the Ajax Zaterdag team competing in the Topklasse.

My last revision was:

Çakmak is a product of the Ajax Youth Academy. In 2014 he left the club to join Trabzonspor, signing a three-year contract with the Turkish club after rejecting interest from Beşiktaş J.K., Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray. Following the departure of Trabzonspor manager Hami Mandıralı, Çakmak was cut from the squad under newly-appointed manager Vahid Halilhodžić. He returned to Amsterdam, joining Ajax Zaterdag competing in the Topklasse.

I leave the good people on here to assess the editor's claim of "The user's handle [sic] of the English language is not better than mine".

Due to the less than civil response to the discussions,[209], ([[210] ],[211]) User:Chillum asked to give the editor some personal space. I accepted his request, ceasing further correspondence with the editor, working only on improving the articles. I have stuck to my word, and it was only recently that when the editor posted in my talk page did I reply to him.

In response to other specific claims made by Subzzee:

• has been changing almost every single edit Only those edits in clear violation are amended to reflect PGCC
• is acting as if he has some type of authority over me I have never claimed to be an authority on any issue. All the edits were based on PGCC.
• change my contributions, sometimes only minutes after my edits are saved If memory serves, there was only one occasion in which that was made, and that was because I have the article on my watchlist and happened to be around at that moment.
• previous conversations which have been removed from the users talk page The conversations were archived. All relevant conversations have been included here for assessment by fellow administrators and editors.

What the editor is exhibiting is a case of ownership of articles, as seen in his behaviour and replies during discussions, and a previous exchange with another editor,[212] which is indicative of ownership behaviour.

Ownership actions

• An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether.[213]

Ownership statements[214]

• "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of that).
• "I saw your edit to this article, and I appreciate your help; however, I am an expert on the subject, and for the accuracy of this article, I have reverted your edit. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them."
• "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
• "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalising my work!"

Required action

While every opportunity had been taken to explain the reasons behind the edits, the editor continues to violate policies, guidelines, consensus and convention without a valid reason. I would also like ANI to note that the editor had been engaging in threats, uncivil behaviour and personal abuse:

• seriously F off, fall back a little and know your place [215]
• 'For years longer then you. You are practically a newbie', extremely petty and incessant, I need you to respect the AP ruling (no such thing, mediation at best) absurdity of your actions etc.[216]

Thank you. LRD 01:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Response back

I am so tired of this guy. This is not what I come to Wikipedia for. I come here to share my interests and to hope to use it as a platform to inform and educate. Not to argue with some know it all who feels the need to patrol my every step and act as some sort of school teacher. I don't claim ownership over these articles, but I spend weeks, sometimes months, and in a few cases (articles that I have been working on locally that I have yet to publish) even years, and a little respect would go a long way. I can't make a single edit as of late without this new guy making changes and waving around some policy he/she feels the need to enforce. When he/she first started this behavior they were even quite aggressive at posting it on my talk page every time they deems it necessary to make changes to my edits.

I go to great lengths to make sure the information I add is factual and add reputable references to back the information. I have had other editors (i.e. GiantSnowman) give me a hard time regarding adding some references in the past, which this user then removes. Ignoring the fact that it was deemed necessary in the first place (proof for players of Antillean or Surinamese descent for example). I have had debates with other editors in the past which is fine. I make the necessary adjustments and am left back to my work in peace. LRD has even tried to tell me how Dutch team names need to be abbreviated, when he is fact speaking to a Dutchman and his interpretation is incorrect. Even though he was then proven wrong I am then told that he is free to interpret and abbreviate names as he sees fit because it isn't set in stone on Wikipedia as it apparently is for German football clubs.

I come to Wikipedia because I enjoy writing and formating articles, but this constant badgering is really wearing me out as of late, and I would prefer it stopped. If LRD knows so much about Dutch football I would like to see him/her write their own articles and stop piggy-backing on my contributions to the site. This person is extremely condescending which has lead to some agitated responses from my end in the past, and I apologize to the community for that, but I really don't see these petty changes as necessary when it does nothing for the content of the article. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

Seeing as I have been mentioned - I don't "give you a hard time", and neither do other editors; you frequently use POV and flowery words and seem incapable in editing in a neutral manner. This is not a fan website, this is an encyclopedia! You think that just because you are Dutch you are an expert, and display ownership issues as a result - well you're not, there is a way of abbreviating club names which has been established through community discussion and consensus. Just because you don't like it - well, tough. You need to abide by our rules if you want to continue to edit here. GiantSnowman 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy. You were mentioned merely because you were adamant about adding certain references on multiple occasions, all of which this user has removed. So you can take that up with them. You also seem to have misinterpreted my statement. I can list several instances in the past where you have given me a hard time regarding reference tags, which is fine. I usually add the necessary references and the case is closed, which is exactly my point.

I do find it humorous when someone who knows little about my culture wants to educate me on what is considered notable (such as our past disputes over subjects pertaining to places like Curaçao or Suriname for example) or how things need to be spelled out as in the example mentioned above pertaining to the consensus. There is no consensus set for clubs in the Netherlands on Wikipedia, which was the point raised by LRD in our previous argument. He then suggested that we establish such a consensus, since Dutch clubs tend to follow Germanic trends, rather then accepted Anglo or Latin based abbreviations. Which is fine. By all means I hope members of the Dutch task force participate in creating such a consensus.

I also think you have twisted several statements into your own interpretation above. Just because I am Dutch doesn't make me an expert. But I can interpret and explain things which pertain to my language and culture better then an outsider and find it somewhat strange when it occurs. I also do not claim ownership over all articles pertaining to the Netherlands or Dutch football. That is an accusative and rather nonsensical statement in my opinion. I am also fine with the rules and regulations on Wikipedia. Whether you take a liking to my writing style or not, there is also policy on Wikipedia which protect the contributor from harassment, and given the excessive scale of these revisions does lead me to take it as a tendentious case of hounding. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

Sigh, what do you mean "this guy" - yet another example of your general crummy attitude to other users, which is a real hindrance to you trying to work in a collaborative environment. As for your comment that "adamant about adding certain references on multiple occasions" - what you really mean is that I have, in the past, reverted your edits where you have introduced unreferenced material about living people - you seem blissfully ignorant of that policy. Your 'culture' is irrelevant, seeing as Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information. Thanks to the wonders of the internet I can do that just as well as you from the comfort of England, just as can our friends in America, Africa, Asia, Australia, anywhere. Just because you are Dutch gives you ZERO extra special privileges or rights to edit Dutch-related articles. GiantSnowman 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy, because you are always quick to jump down my throat. Again, you are missing the point. I don't have an issue with being corrected. If I am wrong then by all means show me what needs to change, and I usually exhibit an healthy attitude towards making the necessary changes. The example I am raising from the past was in fact pertaining to news articles which had been deemed non-credible, when I then had to bring the fact that it was from a reputable Antillean publication to the forefront before it was deemed acceptable. These were deemed necessary for the articles in order to add specific information, which have all been removed by our friend here. My attitude is not what you think, but I do not take well to false allegations, nor do I feel the above mentioned behavior is justified.

Funny that you would find my behavior unacceptable or blissful even, when I have in fact been quite militant about reference tags in the past few years or so, simply to keep you off my back, which I have learned to accept since my early years on Wikipedia to enhance the quality of my contributions. You were right, I was wrong. Simple as that. Me raising the fact that I am Dutch pertains to lingual criteria and not subject matter. I would like to stay on topic and not make this about you and me, or anything other than the issues that I have raised above. But by all means, if you feel there is anything else left to discuss feel free. Thank you for contributing. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

To clear some of the claims:

• When he/she first started this behavior they were even quite aggressive at posting it on my talk page every time they deems it necessary to make changes to my edits. The first discussion (24 August) I posted on the editor's talk page advised him on the PGCCs and was in no way aggressive. After the editor chose to ignore them,[217][218] (1 September) a second message was dropped at his talk page which he replied in a "I do it my way" manner.
• ...stop piggy-backing on my contributions to the site. If you know how Wikipedia works, you wouldn't even make this claim. Doing so only goes to show you have ownership issues.
• This person is extremely condescending... I would like you to point out where I have been so. I wasn't the one consistently harping on "You're a newbie, I've been here longer so my word is bigger than yours". (You might want to note that, going by your logic, GiantSnowman has been here longer than you and is an administrator.) Being on this site earlier has no relevance in the implementation of PGCCs. And if you haven't already realised, "this guy" is quite the condescending term.
• ...I really don't see these petty changes as necessary when it does nothing for the content of the article. Policies and guidelines are not petty and do contribute to making an article better. Look at how application of WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL and correction of prose could do to these articles.[219], [220], [221], [222], [223]
• ...I am then told that he is free to interpret and abbreviate names as he sees fit; There is no consensus set for clubs in the Netherlands on Wikipedia, which was the point raised by LRD in our previous argument. He then suggested that we establish such a consensus, since Dutch clubs tend to follow Germanic trends, rather then accepted Anglo or Latin based abbreviations. Incorrect. I pointed out that the project consensus applied to all clubs, and that if you disagreed, you could discuss it at the project talk page, which you didn't.

I had been more than respectful when talking to you and neither was I the one engaging in insults and accusations. Wikipedia relies on community input from various editors and not one person alone. The behaviour you have exhibited is definitely indicative of ownership of articles when you refused to comply with PGCC and do not allow other editors to correct the issues.

For the record, do you think you should be exempt from policies, guidelines, community consensus and convention, and if so, why? LRD 01:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)'

In response to my supposed ownership of articles portion, I would like to point out that -> even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. I am not claiming ownership of these articles, but with a large majority of those that I contribute, update and maintain, I am the primary contributor, an expert in the field and have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy.

I do not feel the need to be exempt from policy at all. I do however feel crowded by excessive policing. I find the manner in which you choose to enforce policy a bit over the top,, often petty and sometimes rude and condescending, which has evoked an unnecessary reaction from my part at times. I find that the consensus reached for clubs in the Netherlands for example is often incorrect and should be discussed, since there are many errors in how Dutch clubs are named and abbreviated on the English Wikipedia and there is no point in replacing the correct form with an incorrect one. I feel like I am being shadowed and it is not pleasant to be constantly followed around when working on the site. In some cases the revisions might have been an improvement, and I generally don't mind, but I don't like being corrected every step of the way. Often finding revisions occurring only minutes after an entry which to me is too much. You are over doing it. It is rather uncomfortable and disruptive and I would like if you would give me some space. Thank you, (Subzzee (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)).

Most of the edits I have done are in accordance to PGCCs, and it is only when the article suffers from severe prose issues did I intervene with the content. You are invited to point out which specific edits compromised quality and accuracy.

I would like to ask you to point out where I have been over the top.. often petty and sometimes rude and condescending. If you can't, withdraw your statement. Do realise that I was not the one with the personal abuse and while I found no need to stoop to that level, I reserve the right to pursue action on future insults.

Again, the consensus was reached by WP:FOOTBALL and applicable to all clubs. You were advised, more than once, to take it to the project talk page if you disagreed but did not do so. You mention often finding revisions occurring only minutes after an entry while I recall only one episode or two purely due to having the articles on my watchlist and that I happened to be around. Provide diffs of such edits or refrain from making such statements. More importantly, understand that editors are within their rights to correct violations of PGCCs whether it is within one second or one month after the edit. You could avoid all this by sticking to the rules, which are easy to adhere to, but chose to do it your own way (full names, sometimes first names, throughout the article; 77'-minute; famed, historic etc). You may deny claiming ownership of articles but your actions and statements inevitably indicate you do. Since you have already received repeated advice regarding editing in accordance to PGCCs, I do not think you can find it unfair if future violations are reported. Thank you. LRD 01:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, the reason I am seeking help in dealing with you on this page is because talking to you gets me nowhere. I have tried in the past, in a calm approach at first and then more agitated because it leads to absolutely nothing, you see no fault in your behavior and are unwilling to compromise or budge from your stand point and since I can't escape your constant revisions or harassment (you have made major revisions to a multitude of articles in which I am the main contributor), and I have come here for help. You see no fault in your actions and feel the need to throw around policy left and right which I sometimes feel you are abusing, or that much is left to interpretation. For the record I use full names and last names. In most cases the full name, I was fine when you notified me of this the first time. It became rather rude and abusive in my view when you felt the need to write it on my talk page every other day. I start a sentence with the individuals full name (First and last no middle names). In most cases because I might feel it reads better and that it is proper form to address someone in this manner, or to help distinguish a player with a very common last name. I almost never simply use a first name. There are few occasions where a player is mostly known by his first name and even have the first name printed on the shirt, or their name has an inconvenient meaning in Dutch when standing alone. None come to mind that you could be referring to however, but if you are referring to any of the Cape Verdean profiles I have worked on there are instances where the first name is how they are listed everywhere. Same goes for Brazilians, but I don't handle those articles as much. Unless you are referring to Walker maybe, but that is what he is known as.

The time stamp (77'-minute) is how I was instructed to write it on Wikipedia when I first joined. I can't find on which article it was anymore, I was searching for it, but I have even checked the newspapers I follow and that is also how it is written here as well. So I am not quite sure what is wrong with this time marker, this to me is a bit petty. Using a word like 'famed' when referencing the Ajax Youth Academy to me sounds perfectly valid, we are in fact referring to the most award winning and most famous youth academy in the sport. Several academies of some of the biggest clubs in the World are modeled after it. It would seem a legit description to me, and indicative of the subject to a reader who is unfamiliar with the criteria. If by 'historic' you mean my reference to the Olympic Stadium in Amsterdam in which Ajax and JOS Watergraafsmeer contested the first City derby in over 30 years. It is a venue that holds huge historic value to both clubs, especially in the given context, and I think it actually helps a reader understand the material and significance which might be lost without clicking on the hyperlink for further reading.

In terms of the quality as mentioned earlier, Snowman has been quite adamant about adding certain reference tags on various articles in the past, which you have deemed unnecessary and have taken the liberty to remove, when they are in fact necessary references to prove either a players descent or eligibility to represent multiple countries Internationally. You also have a tendency to remove information which you deem unimportant, but that might have significance which you are unaware of.

I don't have as much a problem with you revising my contributions, as I do with you following me every step of the way. It is uncomfortable and since you asked me to list examples, well here you go. [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232]. The part where you felt the need to mention it on my talk page repeatedly was particularly rude in my view.

I really don't want to beat a dead horse, I would prefer if someone could evaluate the situation and be done with it. I am accused of abuse, which is fine. I accept the fact that I have chosen unfavorable language, and although unjustified it was a reaction that was provoked in my opinion. I have had many other encounters with other administrators, or fellow editors which have been polite, pleasant and motivational contrary to my experience in this matter. I would like to get back to what I come here for, which is to write about what I love, and not to argue on this notice board, which I unfortunately thought was necessary. I hope to be able to continue to contribute in a productive manner without feeling like someone is breathing down my neck. Kind regards. (Subzzee (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

Sigh, you are obviously in continual denial of the need to adhere to policies, guidelines, consensus and convention despite the numerous discussions with you, and the consequences of failing to do so without good reason. The application of PGCCs to the edits is unambiguous, provided in the edit summaries, and nothing is left to interpretation. Regarding WP:SURNAME, which states:

After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms", or by a pronoun.

A guideline which is clear, improves readability and is applied widely in Wikipedia. This was brought to your attention in the original discussion on your talk page.[233] You then continued to ignore that with your edits,[234][235] for which a second message was left on your talk page.[236] That's twice and none of the "felt the need to write it on my talk page every other day" that you claim. While there are cases where some people go by their first names per WP:COMMONNAME, it certainly does not apply to this edit.[237]

It is convention that the prime symbol stands for the unit of minute, and that both of them don't go together e.g. 77', 77th minute is acceptable, 77'-minute (77 minute-minute) is not. This was explained to you in the original discussion. Remember that this is Wikipedia EN, and edits should follow English conventions rather than that of a different language.

Apply WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite nor a personal blog. Articles are meant to be worded in a neutral point of view. Note that other editors (including GiantSnowman in this section) have raised this concern to you,[238] which you have chosen to ignore.

Content was edited only when there is a serious need to improve prose issues, or when they are ridden with excessive details. Not every detail needs to be included, especially non-notable ones. Other than the first diff which I might have reworded the opening paragraph differently, you will be hard-pressed to find editors against the policies, guidelines and other explanation stated in the edit summaries.

• [239] - per {{Use dmy dates}} template you included in the article, and per WP:DATE.

• [240][241] - explained in the edit summaries (with link) and in your talk page (towards the end).[242]

• [243][244] - WP:PEACOCK

• [245] - Adding a {{cn}} tag to an unsourced edit about a death. Wikipedia:Verifiability, another core Wikipedia policy.

• [246][247] - WP:SURNAME, edit summary with a clear explanation.

It shows your disregard for policies, guidelines, consensus and convention if you have a problem with those edits. If you have a case, an administrator would have already acted on it. You are not accused of abuse when evidence is provided of your constant insults and threats. Keep to the rules, and raise your concern or seek consensus at the relevant talk pages if you disagree. Familiarise yourself with the core Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V - it applies to every editor on Wikipedia and no one is exempt. Until you do so, editors have the right to correct them rather than leave you to your own devices. Lastly, none of your many make-believe statements have been substantiated by diffs, and it's time you stop with your wild accusations. LRD 02:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Refusal to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, ownership of articles, personal abuse by User:Subzzee

Per discussion above, User:Subzzee refuses to understand the significance of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, community consensus and convention and had persistently edited in violation of them despite ample notice, while clearly exhibiting ownership of articles behaviour. He has also engaged in uncivil behaviour, personal abuse and unfounded statements. For ANI action. Thank you. LRD 02:23, 19 October 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:Un4goten1

• Un4goten1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearly a vandal-only account. Logged yesterday, he did 6 nonsense edits on Henry Greenslade article, all rollbacked (see: first 3, 4th, 5th, and the last one). User was still warned by the users who rollbacked the page. Anyway, the article was vandalized some minutes ago by another vandal (indef blocked per WP:UAA after my report), and the nonsense style looks like the same. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: User was indef blocked by Berean Hunter. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also indeffed his socks Your fucking mother, SniparClan, Cheeesez and 89.241.160.144 (hardblocked 72 hours). Un4goten1 is a sleeper account from late 2010 so this is someone's sock. I've semi-protected the page two weeks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for edits. Ah, sorry, I've not noted he was logged in December 2010 and not few hours ago. Anyway, also the user Theobinns made this pair of strange edits (and nothing else) onto Greenslade's article, on 20 september. Another possible sp? --Dэя-Бøяg 02:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Most likely but I didn't choose to block based on just those two edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: could it be a good idea to open an SPI page for Un4goten1? --Dэя-Бøяg 02:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You can if you would like to...I was hoping someone might put a name on the true sockmaster if they recognize him from this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, I'll try, al least to leave a thrace of this sockpuppetry case. And maybe, someone can recognize the original sockmaster :) --Dэя-Бøяg 11:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I am rather surprised a sock or vandal didn't use a username like "User:Your fucking mother" yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Rotfl :-D I thought the same think reading of him in new user log... only yesterday. --Dэя-Бøяg 11:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I created the SPI page for Un4goten1. I hope it could be helpful to discover the real sm. Anyway, I've listed other possible IP socks (2 of them, in September, are almost certainly him), and discovered a thing that could be interesting to understand the reason of all this vandalisms on a little stub about a person born in 1867. Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

Filedelinkerbot is deleting entire pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.194.124 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please provide a diff. I do not see anything suspicious in the contribution of the bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The deletion log of Filedelinkerbot as a performer has no entries whatsoever. Not to mention that the account does not have administrative rights and therefore would not be able to delete any pages. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Byelo userpage

Byelo made two edits to José Pozo back in September [248][249] but otherwise all of their edits have been to their userpage. 89.165.168.18 has been editing Byelo's userpage as well as the userpage of Bogudan who seems to be another editor who made a couple of perfunctory edits and has used the rest of their time editing their user page. Both userpages seem to be used to keep track of a tournament of some kind and this seems to violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. Helpsome (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Helpsome: did you try discussing this with either user before coming here? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by 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.

---

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

Marcellenchmob has been repeatedly copying the text from here into [250], [251], [252]. No response to warnings: [253], [254]. The article is currently a redirect, and the album may be notable now, but copying text from another site is obviously not the way to go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked with a longer explanation about how to verify license, since he very likely is connected to the record label. This is one of those instances where indef is not intended at all to mean infinite; he's an irregular contributor with a tight focus, and it's important that he understand that this is not optional. I've also explained COI. I've left him a suggestion for further participation. At this point, I think there is the possibility of IP editing or sock puppetry, though, given lack of communication before. Just in case, good idea to keep an eye on that article. :/ I'm doing so, and it looks you were anyway, User:NeilN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 18 October 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.

Strong quacking sensation

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

---

Hi

User:Riotr, User:99.247.39.80 and User:Riotr911 appear to be making a strong quacking noise with regards to their article their username and their edit histories, not sure its worth the SPI givent he blatentness of it but if nessecary I'll go there. Amortias (T)(C) 21:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the same guy. And even if that Giganaut article weren't a hoax, the wording of the article is very poor. For your user page, you might want to consider asking for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer my Userpage unprotected, it keeps the vandalism off the mainspace and anything improper is unlikely to get spotted by anyone looking for somethign useful. People tend to get a bit frustrated by my anti-vandalism work and some damage in a corner is far less problematic than damage somewhere else. Amortias (T)(C) 21:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha, making yourself a lightning rod for the good of the team. I can dig it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And this was quick but think weve got another - blanked this section of the page User:50.101.91.90, Amortias (T)(C) 21:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the accounts and IP for disruption and abusing multiple accounts. Chillum 21:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you can flatten the one above as well he even posted Giganaunt on my user page... Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you google "giganaut" there are a few entries, not necessarily anything to do with the now-deleted Wikipedia article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 18 October 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:Cicciononno

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.

---

Maybe someone else can reach this user; I've tried and failed. For the past month, Cicciononno (talk · contribs) has edited film-related articles. The vast majority of these edits are disruptive and have been reverted within minutes. The problem is that Cicciononno likes to convert numbers in the infobox to use periods instead of commas (in violation of MOS:DECIMAL). Cicciononno also strips the infobox of citations, sometimes changes the values (without a citation), and adds wikilinks to every single name: [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], etc. Cicciononno's talk page is littered with ignored warnings, and I really don't know how to get this person to stop. If someone can get Cicciononno to communicate, maybe a block is unnecessary, but cleaning up after Cicciononno has become a minor aspect of my daily routine now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thrown over to WP:AIV for a hopefully quicker repsonse. Amortias (T)(C) 20:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations by Spiritclaymore at Huns

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

Huns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spiritclaymore added material that plagiarized from the sources Najjar and Livingstone, and was warned about it. He then restored older material that plagiarized from the Russian Translation series (last source in there), was warned again (with the explanation to not use the same words), to which he readded the material, paraphasing a different part and only removing one word from the Russian Translation Series plagiarism.

He appears interested in learning to do it right, but there's still a degree of responsibility on him to be able to not plagiarize (even if it's unintentional).

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

He's also been edit-warring over content, but at the moment he seems to have stopped (perhaps a time zone thing). We'll see what happen when he returns to the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

He's restored the content after I warned him about 3rr and asked him not to. Filing a 3rrnb report now. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And Spiritclaymore seems to think that 12 hours is more than 24 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

SMH Records Spam and possible meatpuupet/sockpuppet

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

---

Could use some eyes here, :Either we have a sock or a meatpuppet haven't decided on which, for relevant past history please see [[262]], you can also see via edit summaries here [[263]] and attemptes to direct to relevant policies here [[264]] and [[265]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

1. It may or may not be a case of sock-/meat-puppetry, but it is not obvious that it is, without your saying what evidence makes you think so.
2. The place to ask for possible sock-/meat-puppetry to be investigated is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, not here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:27, 18 October 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.

Deletion Review -- All open reviews accidentally hidden?

This is wayyyyy beyond my expertise, but when I go to Deletion Review Active Discussions [266], it appears that the close of a 19 October case has accidentally hidden all prior open cases. If I'm right, could this be fixed? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure this fixed it. Table wasn't closed. Stickee (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Look good. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how this works, obvious vandalism is this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

Read under Kosovo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:E1A:3CE0:5CE8:29F0:44BC (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see vandalism there. I do see a point one could raise, about whether that section about Kosovo is misplaced there (the erection of a single poor-taste statue of a foreign politician hardly rises to the level of what all the rest of the page is about, even though some commentator in some newspaper once remarked that it is "reminiscent" of such patterns), but that's a matter to be discussed on the article talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments

I'm not sure this is the correct place for this notice, but I couldn't find one that fit exactly what was going on. On Talk:Sandra Morgen, an anon editor made some disparaging comments about another editor, although not by name. The editor who was ill-spoken of then deleted those comments. The comments in question have been restored several times, and either deleted, edited, or hidden [267] [268]. User:Thebrycepeake has been warned, and yet persists in the behavior. I understand this was part of a larger issue between she and anon, but do not believe that justifies deleting this comment, however uncivil, unkind, or even unfair. --Briancua (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL explicitly states: Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. If Thebrycepeake has objected to this information appearing on the talk page, and has explained why, do you think it's WP:CIVIL to repeatedly insist on reposting it? What purpose does this serve? Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at what it says just before the sentence you quote, Ivanvector: "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." Also, I will quote again what I wrote on Thebrycepeake's talk page: Take a look at what the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have to say on the subject: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection..." Under the heading of personal attacks, they can sometimes be removed if the comments involve " personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." As you can see, you have to rise to the level of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in order to justify deleting a comment, and still then it is a "borderline case." This comment does not even come close to being disruptive.

I've removed the comments again. There is no reason to force them to remain there. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The anon can take his accusations to an appropriate noticeboard if he has a problem with an editor. --Onorem (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Depending on one's viewpoint, it could be argued that referring to the subject of the article as a "low level academic" could be construed to be a BLP violation. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you for weighing in. I'd like to provide some context for Briancua's harassment/protests. He had been reverting edits made on various university and college pages that had been added after consensus, and supported by three other editors. See [[269]] for more context on that. After trying to provoke an edit war, he was told to stop because the content he was deleting was supported by a score of reliable sources and List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations, which is an article that I originally wrote. He then nominated that article for deletion [[270]]. Additionally, he went through my contribution history and undid a couple of edits, including the initial erasure of the uncivil activity on the Sandra Morgen talk page. It feels very much like I'm being harassed by this user simply because he disagreed with edits that I had made on pages he patrols. Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I, naturally, feel differently about much of what was said here, but won't respond to that in an effort to keep this conversation focused on the issue at hand, the deletion on comments from this particular talk page. I would, however, like to apologize to Thebrycepeake if she feels harassed. That certainly was not my intention. --Briancua (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology @Briancua:, and hope the Admins will close the thread with no other actions needed after deleting the comments on Talk:Sandra Morgen.- Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am glad we are on good terms again, but I still feel it is inappropriate to delete another user's comments on a talk page and am waiting for an admin to chime in. --Briancua (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The anon can take his accusations to an appropriate noticeboard if he has a problem with an editor." - Care to respond to those points? Could you explain why the anon's comments are in any way appropriate for the article talk page? --Onorem (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Anon is claiming that Thebrycepeake has a conflict of interest in writing this article in that her main objective was not to help improve Wikipedia, but to flatter a professor for her own academic gain. I have no idea if that is true or not, and regardless I think that the subject meets WP:N, but I think that, as uncivil as they are, the comments warn future editors to be on the lookout for bias in the article. Beyond that, I have a fundamental problem with deleting another user's comments on a talk page. Here Thebrycepeake has accused me of harassing her, and elsewhere accused me of being a sockpuppet. I didn't delete those comments, edit them, or attempt to hide them in any way even though I think they were unfair. I'll let my actions and my words stand on their own, as I think Thebrycepeake should let the article on Professor Morgan stand on its own. --Briancua (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:JARA7979

There have been a lot of users repeatedly removing the same information, currently fully sourced one, from the article Joseon since October 2013 and the most persistent one is JARA7979 (talk · contribs). Her/his first removal was this and the latest one was today. Though s/he wrote "(please check the Talk:Joseon#Tributary_state)" in her/his edit summary, but there's no new post. I talked with her/him. On my talk page and the article talk page. The same kind of information can be found in the infobox of Ashikaga shogunate and Ryukyu Kingdom, but no editors try to remove it. JARA7979 is obviously a white-washer, a Korean POV pusher, almost a SPI and a IDIDN'THEAR type editor. Please block the user. Oda Mari (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit unnessecary to go from what appears to be no warnings straight to an instant level 4, on the flip side his last [271] unblock request included the statement that they would gain consensus instead of resorting to editwaring, it does look like the slowest edit-war ever but the IP's arent helping by the fact they removed identical information but taht would be somethign for WP:SPI. Amortias (T)(C) 17:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I first left this on September 24 after I saw the user removed the information again and again before my revert. Please take a look at this. It was last year and JARA7979 knows what she/he is doing. Oda Mari (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionaly, the user must have read this message dated on Feb. 9, 2014, but s/he removed the same information on Feb. 26, 2014 immediately after the block was lifted earlier on the day without consensus. And again on the next day, the user removed the information. These are the warnings. [272] and [273]. I also left this on the user's talk page in April. What level of warning should I have used? Oda Mari (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Userpage (ab)use for political campaigning

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.

---

When patroling recent uploads at Commons, I stumbled over the image at right and found that its uploader uses this image with the caption "This user knows for a fact that Scott Walker is unfit for governor" on pages User:Gourami Watcher and User:Gourami Watcher/antiscottwalker. Though I never heard of Scott Walker before and have no interest in him, IMO this is an inappropriate (ab)use of wikipedia userspace for political campaigning. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) When I come across crap like this, I remove it as a BLP violation, but I can't delete files and have found it frustrating to navigate the CSD criteria there. It's presenting the user's derogatory opinion about a living person as fact, and we don't do that here. Delete the file, delete the userbox, warn the user. Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated it for speedy deletion on the commons as an attack image. Chillum 20:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the userbox and removed the link to it. It has been deleted since I started typing this. Ivanvector (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I've deleted the image as out of Commons' scope, and deleted the userbox as an attack page. BLP applies Wikipedia-wide and Wikipedia is not for political campaigning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Scott Walker is the governor of Wisconsin, and a figure who evokes strong opinions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User talk:RubySea

Not sure what to do with this: user has been blocked for 4 years for block evasion (being a sock of someone, presumably) and had their talk page deleted per G7 the same day, but is now using their recreated talk page to store a cut-and-paste copy of a page up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Windows Phone 8 devices. There have been no comments on the AfD by IPs or low-edit/relatively new accounts, so presumably the user stumbled upon it independently. The talk page has also been used to store another article cut-and-paste, of Neumont University, back in 2012. Can the page be deleted, and if so, should it be? I'm not sure if any WP:CSD fit, or if such an argument would be better suited for WP:MfD. It certaintly doesn't follow WP:TPG, that's for sure.

As for what admins can do about this: should talk page access be revoked again? It was in the original block, but User:Dcoetzee (now arbcom-blocked, unfortunately) restored it the same day that the first cut-and-paste was made, apparently per a request on IRC. What the page has since been used for seems like abuse of TP privileges.

Also pinging User:Vianello, the blocking admin, but as they've (sorry) been inactive for a couple months, I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, not notifying the user beyond the talk page ping (I think it does work if it's section header?), for obvious reasons. I'm not watching; ping me if anything important comes up. ansh666 07:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just reverted it and left a note, it's been years without any changes, let's see. Problem is the first block was for block evasion so without knowing the main account or the extent, I'm not sure I would want to unblock but I've seen people using their talk pages for drafts and it just create headaches for no reason (one of which being ripping history apart if they want it moved to articlespace) so I'll give them a chance on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweet, another double secret block. --NE2 07:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering this it's probably either self-requested or justified - not that it makes it any less unfortunate. ansh666 07:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz

Raymarcbadz has been removing content from "nation" at the XXXX Olympics articles. Here is a summary of his disruptive behaviour:

1. [274] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
2. [275] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
3. [276] - Benin at the 2008 Summer Olympics - (20/10/14)
4. [277] - Vanuatu at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)

• Older examples:

1. [278] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (10/3/13)
2. [279] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (9/3/13)
3. I can spot seven here

• Warnings:
• I gave him a 4im due to the amount of content removal ([280]) which s/he reverted quickly ([281])

Raymarcbadz has made 35000+ edits and he has been a great service to WP:OLY. I just think he has gone a bit far. Maybe a official final warning saying: "If you remove content again from WP:OLY articles, you'll be blocked without warning". Just a suggestion though, as it is up to a sysop. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of user talk page

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

---

I hate doing this, but User:Viriditas has been told politely, firmly and repeatedly told to stay off my user talk page after posting a series of bizarre, ideologically-driven, conspiracy theories in addition to offensive commentary that suggested I was racist, racially insensitive, or blinded by my "white privilege". There is no reason why any editor should be forced to deal with this sort of behavior on their own talk page, especially after telling the perpetrator to take it elsewhere. This sort of baiting, taunting and provocation should not be tolerated by any editor. I would be grateful if any administrator would simply warn Viriditas to stop doing this on my talk page (or actual consequences will follow). Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff to the message where you asked them to stay off your talk page? Amortias (T)(C) 11:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I also notified them of this thread while I was taking a look. Amortias (T)(C) 11:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying Viriditas, Amortias. I make ANI reports so infrequently that the procedures are not ingrained; I apologize for not adhering to ANI standard operating procedure in that regard. Requested diffs: [282], [283] and [284]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine I only remember this sort of thing as im one of those people who reads the instruction manual before doing anything. Amortias (T)(C) 12:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the personalized request on Viriditas' talk page. Hopefully, that will be sufficient to put a stop to this. If Viriditas will acknowledge this, I think we can safely close this thread without much further discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1:Have spoken to Viriditas and hes happy for me to act as a go between for the two of you, if he has a concern they'll raise it with me and if you have a concern you can raise it with me. I'll then pass it on or deal with it directly. Should mean they shouldnt need to post on your talk page and you cant be accused of goading them by posting on theirs. let me know if thats acceptable and i'll close this off. Amortias (T)(C) 21:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amortias: If you need a second editor to consult with on this, I'm happy to try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Feel free to stalk my talk page, I've asked if both editors can post concerns there. Amortias (T)(C) 22:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 19 October 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 continues to violate interaction ban

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

---

I really don't like to do this, but this is a clear, willful and blatant violation of the interaction ban between Ihardlythinkso and me. What was he even thinking? Obviously there is another side to the story with regard to the narrative he presents there, but you probably don't give a damn so I won't go into it unless you request further information. The pertinent point here is that the interaction ban has been explained to him in unambigmous terms on several occasions, yet he continues to violate it. This is the fourth violation. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no: we don't archive a debate within minutes [285]; especially when a hasty block has taken place [286]. This place becomes dafter by the second. Giano (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no debate. The topic ban was unambiguously violated, and a block was applied in keeping with the ban. Keeping this thread open is what's daft. Enjoy! Doc talk 08:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The link provided does not mention "Max Browne," only a wiki dispute resolution board insider would know that's who IHTS was referring to. MB's monitoring of IHTS's contributions looking for violations is as much the cause of the disruption as IHTS's comments. Now, would someone please unblock IHTS? NE Ent 11:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would that you were as forgiving with me as with IHTS, who was clearly violating a topic ban. Nothing against IHTS as such. But topic bans must be enforced against all violators, not just against users you don't like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This has a bad taste to it. It would have been better if another editor had made this report. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the right way for user A to report it when user B violates their interaction ban? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 18 October 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.

GoodDay You're correct. The comments he made didn't specify who he was talking about, so no it wasn't obvious that he was breaching his IBAN, nor was he posting on Maxs page, nor actually "Interacting" with him in anyway. however, since the IBAN concerned MaxBrowne, it could be argued that MaxBrowne violated his IBAN for sure. I'd say Ihardlythinkso needs to be unblocked, this was hasty and not obviously an IBAN. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is only one person who IHTS references with the line "classic narcisist" so its oblique yet specific reference. I had spotted it yesterday but I was hoping he would retract it prior to someone bringing it up on ANI. Unfortunately that did not happen. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence and the RFC over the lede.

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but could some experienced editors please look at Talk:Artificial intelligence?

Basically, there was a dispute over whether or not the lede should describe the field as trying to make "human-like" software.

• A user called an RFC.
• User User:FelixRosch started edit waring to include a template-breaking "disclamer" that he didn't think the RFC was created by an impartial editor. [287] [288] [289]
• (An experienced editor warned him not to do this..)
• It started to become clear that the RFC would not arrive at the conclusion FelixRosch wanted.

Now, users User:Robert McClenon and User:FelixRosch have prematurely closed the RFC to form their own, private two-person agreement[290] on the issue. Of course, User:FelixRosch is edit waring [291][292] to keep it closed.

Thanks. APL (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I closed the RFC, after its wording had been changed and after discussion of other ways to word it, with the understanding that User:FelixRosch would open a different wording of the RFC that he thought was neutral. At this point, since there doesn't seem to be agreement as to how an RFC should be written to address the question of the wording of the lede sentence, moderated dispute resolution may be a better answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The OP forgot to notify the two parties. I have notified User:FelixRosch. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation to editors to pointing me to this notideboard since @APL did not do this. My understanding is that @Robert McClenon currently has successfully made a 5 (five) editor consensus upon his closing the RfC following the "Steelpillow" consensus edit on Talk. User @APL has not notified me of this noticeboard and has misrepresented the total number of 5 editors in the consensus. The consensus of 5 editors was established by @Robert McClenon with the following offer which consensus I joined, with @Robert McClennon currently holding the 5 editor consensus as follows:

@Robert McClennon: You appear to be saying that of the 4 options from various editors which I listed above as being on the discussion table, that you have a preference for version (d) by Steelpillow, and that you are willing to remove the disputed RfC under the circumstance that the Steeltrap version be posted as being a neutral version of the edit. Since I accept that the editors on this page are in general of good faith, then I can stipulate that if (If) you will drop this RfC by removing the template, etc, that I shall then post the version of Steeltrap from 3 October on Talk in preference to the Qwerty version of 1 October. The 4 paragraph version of the Lede of Qwerty will then be posted updated with the 3 October phrase of Steelpillow ("...whether human-like or not") with no further amendations. It is not your version and it is not my version, and all can call it the Steelpillow version the consensus version. If agreed then all you need do is close/drop the RfC, and then I'll post the Steelpillow version as the consensus version. FelixRosch (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Your turn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Installing new 4 paragraph version of Lede following terms of close-out by originating Editor RobertM and consensus of 5 editors. It is the "Steelpillow" version of the new Lede following RfC close-out on Talk. FelixRosch (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

After he joined the Steelpillow consensus to form a consensus of 4 editors, @Robert McClenon had invited me to joined the consensus which I did do, and he at this moment holds the 5 editor consensus. He offered to close the RfC first, and I offered to post his endorsement of the Steelpillow edit in return, and he held me to these terms. Both of these were done, the RfC was closed by RobertM and I posted the Steelpillow edit as promised in the above. The RfC was closed by the author of the RfC and the Steelpillow version posted in the Lede following the consensus of 5 editors. FelixRosch (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch has been slow edit-warring on this article, pushing a perspective that is not backed up by the literature. Notice the absence of sources. [293][294][295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302][303][304][305][306][307][308][309][310][311].

Reasoned and sourced responses from other users get ignored, misrepresented or a curveball. There is very little effort to build consensus.

More Rosch drama [312][313][314][315][316] (and there's more on other subjects unrelated to artificial intelligence)

I haven't seen an editor single-handedly create this much drama in all my time on Wikipedia. Pretty impressive for an editor contributing for less than a year. pgr94 (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Pgr94 Please do not make fun of two editors who have been involved in good faith discussion for over a month by singling out your favorite dozen or so one-line comments from a very long discussion. There is no reason for you to make fun of RobertM either for making the first genuine progress in the discussion by establishing a consensus edit of 5 editors by his closing his RfC for the benefit of the first 5 editor consensus edit in over a month. FelixRosch (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: reverted to close the RFC prematurely yet again (2014-10-18T15:01:47) just after his response here (2014-10-18T14:47:52). I have waited some time in the hope that there would be a response to this request for assistance. Since there has been no response yet, so I have reopened the RFC myself. We really need admin intervention here (whether to allow the RFC to complete without further disruption or otherwise), so will someone please respond. --Mirokado (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 630191794 You appear to be edit warring against a 5 editor consensus for an RfC closed by the originating author RobertM. Please stop WP:EW and WP:3RR. Your next edit puts you over 3RR and your Talk page is posted for WP:EW because of your reverts against the consensus of 5 editors. You have not even tried one single time to contact RobertM concerning the established consensus or anyone else to try to make consensus. RobertM has made genuine progress for a discussion over a month long for the first time by establishing a consensus of 5 editors. You have been invited to seek consensus in the section below it on Talk:Artificial Intelligence and you have refused. Please stop edit warring and please follow Wikipedia policy and procedures for establishing consensus before you edit. FelixRosch (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Section for editors who do not know the difference between "to" and "too", twice in one edit

Time for action here ....this Felix person competences has been called into question to many times to believe that anything will ever change with the behaviour Getting tedious to say the least. Getting reverted 90 percent of the time then edit waring over those edits would lead any normal editor to conclude Felix simply doesn't get it!! To many editors have wasted there time with this guy already. I don't think English is the editor's primary language. -- Moxy (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

user:Nitramrekcap

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.

---

Indefinitely blocked editor Nitramrekcap appears to back to his old tricks at Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, as promised at User talk:Jimbo Wales in August: see here (BTW, membership of the PRB society does not in any way imply expertise. All you have to do is pay their extortionate £14 per annum fee). Special:Contributions/2.30.207.16 is editing with the same pattern. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion, and some fairly disruptive editing. Euryalus (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Norden1990

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 want to draw the attention of the administrators to the Norden1990 case. He has an indefinite block and he has made lots of illegal contributions since he was blocked. But unfortunately, administrators ignore his investigation page. The last investigation request was reviewed after 15 days and the closing message was "IP appears to be dynamic and the last edit made was over two weeks. Sockmaster has likely moved on to another IP, so I don't see how blocking would prevent anything. Closing. ". How can administrators be so sloppy here? They ignore his case and after 2 weeks they say "now it is too late" ? A reasonable administrators would have immediately have made a IP range block for the group of socks 84.236.42.94, 84.236.42.0, 84.236.7.157, 84.236.16.49.

I strongly suggest administrators to look at his case as soon as possible, before he "likely moves to another IP" again. Some range blocks could be shaped there (there are some clear favourite IP formats there). and maybe a site ban after so many months of continous socking. Osugiba (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The above message was brought to you by a self-confessed sock of User:Iaaasi, who is blocked. (I'm leaving the message here as the sockmaster clearly has enough energy to create yet another sock to repost it if deleted.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 20 October 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:Fooladfc2013

This use is making a mess by creating almost empty pages for all red links in this page Taekwondo at the 2014 Asian Games. even though other users including myself improved some of those pages but I think it doesn't change the fact. he also created so many not-so notable pages like this one without any references. he also doesn't answer his talkpage at all. I assume he can't understand English at all, I also tried other language but I'm not sure if he even knows he has to check his talkpage ! I'm not necessarily asking for him getting banned because he tries to help wikipedia but I think someone has to stop him from making unreferenced and unnecessary pages. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)