Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865

User:Joloimpat

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

We are having trouble reasoning with this user. He is editing disruptively in a couple of articles. Currently that means he is adding interwiki links where it has been decided that these are not helpful and we should instead be using {{ill}}. This user has been edit-warring in List of people declared venerable by Pope Francis and List of people beatified by Pope Francis and has refused to discuss. In fact this user has never, in 700 edits, ever used a Talk page or an edit summary. His talk page is littered with dablink notifications and warnings, including me asking him to use an edit summary and warning him about adding unsourced material to another Pope Francis article. Due to edits like this I believe he has begun to edit logged-out, perhaps because he's on his mobile phone, but it has the additional effect of avoiding scrutiny. 72.209.251.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has an active editing history since September up to two hours ago. I gave him a warning about going to ANI with, of course, no response. So here we are. Any suggestions? Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

He made several more edits after I posted this notice. I have tagged the article as it is in clear violation of WP:ELNO. Editor remains silent with no talk page or edit summary communication. Elizium23 (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree- I don't see where he's made an attempt to actively talk to anyone since he signed up in 2012 (although the bulk of his edits started in 2013), despite multiple posts left on his userpage and him getting pinged in the most recent discussion at Talk:List of people declared venerable by Pope Francis. I honestly doubt that any of us trying to converse with him would yield any more results, but I will try to drop a note on his talk page letting him know that some sort of discussion is required here. I can understand not really wanting to talk a whole lot on Wikipedia, but to go this long without responding to anyone is a little severe. If he ignores the post (which seems likely) then the only other way to get his attention would be a short block combined with a warning that he should not edit war and discuss things on the talk page if the edits are seen as contentious. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

So there is this user - Troydevinny545 who was blocked for sockpuppetry. Since then he created numerous accounts to evade the block and vandalize Wikipedia. I re-opened his case and reported his new puppets. Later, an admin blocked all the accounts I reported. But that didn't stop him. After a while he created another account - User:FN712. An IP user re-opened the previous case again and added his newly created account to list of suspected sockpuppets. When I warned him about sockpuppetry he verbally attacked me. My question is there any way to stop this user from creating multiple accounts?. He might never stop and will create tons of accounts to vandalize Wikipedia. I really don't know the motivation behind any of this.--Chamith (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S.- I found this edit on another account of his. This user is a serious threat to Wikipedia.--Chamith (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RBI ask for a checkuser. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's just drop a CBAN on them. It's obvious they don't have the competence to edit here. No, I'm not suggesting a ban for competence (although I'm sure there have been examples of this in the past) but persistent socking, repeated personal attacks, general disruption and vandalism should be more than enough to earn a ban. 218.106.157.150 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 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.

Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia

User:Yogisenact is trying to push a POV edit at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia against a long-standing consensus. He is avoiding discussion on the Talk Page. This article is subject to discretionary admin action per WP:ARBMAC. He has reverted here and here. The Talk Page discussion is here. I have warned him on his Talk Page here. --Taivo (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped for the time being (despite their declaration at your talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Bloom6132

Bloom6132 (talk · contribs) (I am not notifying him on his talk page, for reasons you will see shortly) was last blocked for aggression/personal attacks (in discussions relating to DYK and the WikiCup) in October 2014 by Fram (talk · contribs). Since then, his fratching/aggression on topics relating to the WikiCup and DYK have continued. For some examples from the last few days, see his general battleground mentality at RfA (the insistence that he's the real victim when he is told that his conduct is out of order is a common trait), refusal to assume good faith, endless wikilawyering (see this, for instance, where he defends his ludicrous claim that ThaddeusB had acted in violation of NLT). Eventually, I closed the discussion where most of this was going on on "more heat than light" grounds. He responded by turning up at my talk page, and, among other things, apparently accusing Adam Cuerden of fascism. I gave a final warning (several people have told him his conduct is inappropriate in the last week alone), in response to which he posted a message at the top of his talk page saying that I was "banned" from leaving messages there, due to my supposed lies and harassment. I am of the view that Bloom's conduct, if anything, has gotten worse since he previous block, and that he should be blocked again. However, I am not going to do it myself, as he has made clear that even my posting on his talk page "will be imputed as harassment and dealt with accordingly" (whatever that means) and because he will insist that I am "involved"- if he means that I've been putting up with this and/or have been the target of his ire for months, he is correct. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with J. Milburn's assessment of the situation. The situation at the WikiCup talk page has been quite heated, but Bloom's gone a bit too far. Will block if consensus is for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• This editor looks like the whole package of problems. Support long block. SPACKlick (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• User:Bloom6132 notified here The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support block This will be imputed as harassment and dealt with accordingly feels like its designed to have a chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors. Personal attacks and accusations of breeching NLT seem to be at best unconstructive and at worst intentionally disruptive. Amortias (T)(C) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• You've been here for six months, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what an WP:IBAN is. It's a two-way street BTW, so I'm not giving a "chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors" as you had implicitly accused me of doing. For example, the first person banned on my TP hasn't talked to me since October 22, and neither have I. Unfortunately, this IBAN had to be violated just 1h38m after I issued it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Except, Bloom, that you can't unilaterally "issue" interaction bans. Take another look at the banning policy. "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee or, in certain topic areas, by administrators." There is no interaction ban, here- there is you telling me that I'm not welcome on your talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of what an WP:IBAN is and aware of how it works. I am also aware that you can request users not to post on your talk page. Nowhere have I implicitley accused you of anthing (and if I gave that impression it was in error) I gave my opinion on the matter as how the statements read to me. Could you provide an answer or explanation of the other points metioned above such as the accusation of fascism. Amortias (T)(C) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I can. First off, calling for more transparency and openness in the WikiCup is not a refusal to assume good faith. If anything, I think we (except for Milburn) can all agree that having a more transparent and fair competition is something we should all strive for. Unfortunately, not only does Milburn not agree with me on that, it can be said that he's failed to assume the assumption of good faith. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the comment pipelinked to fascism, what do you call someone who, as I put it, wants to "eliminate anyone who holds a different view to yours". Adam Cuerden implicitly called for Milburn to ban me from the Cup. This comes from the same person who went on a neurotic tirade against a fellow Cup competitor who dared to suggest that the points awarded for featured pictures be reduced. Coupled with personal attacks both behind my back and one insulting both me and Milburn, I can't think of another term to describe such behaviour. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you and Adam Cuerden should be blocked for personal attacks, calling people an "a**" is unacceptable. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how I personally attacked Adam Cuerden. I never called him a fascist, and describing his actions as a desire to "eliminate anyone who holds a different view to yours" is not a personal attack – it's the truth. I definitely don't see eye to eye with either Milburn or Nergaal, and yet he's managed to attack all three of us with vile vitriol. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You should be blocked not because of your behavior with AC, but for other reasons stated above. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to the evidence I gave about the obvious baiting from you and others supporting Czar. Care to explain? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't bait, and I did not intend to. AGF. I don't know what you expect me to "explain". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with this 100%. He has a battleground mentality as you can see in the discussions here. We (Me, Ritchie333, FreeRangeFrog, Secret, and others) were trying to have a civilized discussion, while Bloom was throwing accusations of "bagdering" and "abuse" at us. We were calm while he was getting worked up. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Of course you were all "calm" when implicitly impugning my integrity, accusing me of "twist[ing] things around", and calling me the reason "why RfA is failing" (same diff). And it's not just me, it's the same treatment you guys gave to anyone who opposed. Chris troutman was also blamed for being "reason why RFA is broken", as well as for stack voting. Even supporters of Czar were reminded you guys not to corner those who voted to oppose. And yet you call this a "civilized discussion". More like baiting. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Those diffs don't make you look better Bloom, they show you over-reacting to civil discourse. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, "civil discourse" made hand-in-hand with passive-aggressive behavior. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block It's a shame, as I have evidence (from his GA and DYK contributions) that he's a good editor, but he hasn't assumed as much good faith as I would have liked in discussions, his beef with Czar over the WikiCup sounds like a grudge (and when I said I agreed I thought the WikiCup had problems it was ignored), and his talk page brings to mind WP:OWB #48 : "People who put lists of users they don't like on their user pages won't be around for long" I've got a nasty feeling as soon as he joins this thread he's going to run out of WP:ROPE, which is a shame. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You called it. It is a shame. SPACKlick (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block Whilst I agree with Richie333 that his content work is generally a positive, Bloom6132 really doesn't seem capable of conforming to community standards of behaviour - his inability to drop the stick in disputes and his apparent blindness to his own personal attacks on other editors (cf. this unblock appeal and my response) seems to generate conflict whenever he's required to interact with others. I don't see that positive content contributions balance out this kind of confrontational editing. (Caveat: it should be noted that I too am "banned" from Bloom6123's talkpage, for making attempts ([1],[2]) to curb his behaviour.) Yunshui ^雲_水 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"For making attempts to curb his behaviour" – first off, enough with the patronizing paternalistic tone. Secondly, you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• "you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face" Banned? Gravedancing? Rubbing it into my face? What? Not what I'm seeing. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• "What? Not what I'm seeing" – says the person who has been baiting me non-stop over the past 2 days. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if you dislike my tone; that's simply how I talk (or write, at least). Like Amaryllis, I too failed to see any gravedancing or face-rubbing in those two messages, and I gave them extensive consideration after you posted your "ban" notice. However, I concluded that they read as I had intended them: one, an attempt to explain why your unblock appeal did not meet the requirements at WP:GAB and one to alert you to the fact that you were repeating the same behaviour that led to your block. At no point did I intend to demonstrate any levity over the fact that you had been blocked, but despite the fact that I do not consider the motives behind it valid, you'll note that I have complied with your talkpage notice ever since. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology not accepted. I know you're probably peeved at how I responded to your so-called "explanations". You may disguise it well, but the way you write to me (i.e. treating me like your subordinate as opposed to your equal) reveals how your support for blocking me is purely vindicatory. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspected that you (and possibly others) might see it that way, which is why I added the caveat to my original statement so that others could assess my actions as well as yours. However, although I am basing my support for blocking on my experiences with you in the past, I genuiniely believe, after reflecting on those experiences and looking at your interactions with others, that blocking you would in fact be in the best interests of the project. So far, you've said nothing that would convince me otherwise. I am sorry that you feel unable to accept my apology. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"I am basing my support for blocking on my experiences with you in the past" – that's all we needed to hear. Your use of "However" and "although" together reveal it all. Move to strike out Yunshui's "support block" vote from the discussion – it's made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate against my previous interactions with him and to punish me for it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose striking Yunshui's support. I still see nothing wrong with what he said, and you keep overreacting. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this isn't up for voting, especially not from you. Until you address the damning evidence against you and Czar's support brigade of baiting voters who oppose, you should be viewed as a biased baiter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Here's the situation, Bloom. Two admins are considering blocking you (though I suspect Yunshui won't because he has declined a previous unblock request and could be considered involved). You have not edited any articles for a week, preferring to focus on disputes, which makes me question if you've actually been here to write an encyclopedia for that time. You can accept that things have got out of hand and a little heated, agree to disagree, and go back to article work with the dramah level reduced. That's my preferred option. Or, you can wind a few more admins up, get blocked, and watch your talk page fill up with declined unblock requests. I've seen how these things go - if a general consensus amongst admins is that you should be blocked, it is very difficult to extract yourself from the situation. I'm not saying that's good or bad, more that it's a fact of wikilife. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"You can accept that things have got out of hand and a little heated, agree to disagree, and go back to article work with the dramah level reduced" – OK, I accept that completely. I'll disenfranchise myself and completely stay off RFA, for a time mutually agreed upon with the community. I will also not comment about "delayed updates" on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring page, except for a simple vote in favour of the proposal I made (or a modified form of it). Finally, I will have removed the talkpage ban I issued on J Milburn as a gesture of good faith. But if an admin still proceeds with a block, then I will rescind all these concessions. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Any other concessions you'd like me to make (within reason, and from anyone not involved)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that sounds good. If you want an article to look at, personally I'd quite like Canterbury Cathedral to have some spit and polish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal As their post above a three month self imposed ban on the above sections. Three months appears reasonable (to me) due to the low throughput of RFA's. As an adendum to the above I would be willing to (with the communities backing) to have Bloom6132 pass any issues they see with an RFA directly to my talkpage. I will then evaluate and discuss these with Bloom6132 and if in agreement raise them at he RFA myself (I dont believe this will be in breech of the self imposed ban as I am aware of other situations where users have been told to raise queries through another user). Amortias (T)(C) 16:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said I would not comment on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring page with regards to "delayed updates". Any other matters such as voting on next year's rules are outside the scope of that promise. And since you actively voted in favour of my block, I will not deem you a neutral third-party with regards to RFA discussions. I'd prefer someone who I've had more experience working with and gotten along well with over the years, and a fellow content creator like Go Phightins! or Crisco 1492 (provided that either of them don't mind). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. I put myself forward as an offer as part of the original proposal as it seemed an appropriate way of allowing you to express your concerns but can understand if their is another alternative that you would prefer.Amortias (T)(C) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support Amortia's proposal, it'd be a shame to lose a good contributor like Bloom, despite his behaviour. So, I think this would be good, this would prevent most trouble, and blocks aren't intended as punishment. Sadly, I must support a block. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I like Amortias' proposal, as for Bloom's request for another point of contact. Your initial offer was for complete abstinence, Amortias is offering to be there for important things which need to be dealt with in that three months. Notice that you can still just entirely abstain for three months, there's no obligation to engage in that part of the deal. SPACKlick (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I take exception to your ES accusing me of "biting the hand that's kind". I'm offering a viable alternative, so please assume some good faith if that's what you expect of me. And while you're at it, why don't you do something productive and produce content like I do rather than sit at ANI demanding "long blocks" for those who actually work towards making WP what it is today. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right to take exception and I unreservedly apologise (explanation but not an excuse. I opened the page, got heated, wrote a long snarky rant and put that as the edit summary. I stepped away, thought better of it, re-wrote the post and forgot to change the edit summary) That said, you then attacking me for my contribution pattern while spectacularly failing to realise that part of what you're "Making WP" is an uncomfortable place for other editors to work is exactly the sort of behaviour I saw that made me suggest a long block. I stand by the suggestion that you be blocked. I would be open to it being limited to RFA's and one narrowly construed topic ban (WikiCup delays) as you do good editing, however I wouldn't be hard to convince that it should be broader because of the way you interact with other editors. And just before you bring up Punative the reasons I suggest a block fall uner reasons 2 and 3 or preventative blocks to stop disruptive behaviour and encourage a more congenial style. SPACKlick (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm, however, confused by your saying that you "like Amortias' proposal", but that you "stand by the suggestion that [I] be blocked". You can't have it both ways. Either you support blocking me and the proposal is irrevocably off the table, or I remain unblocked but adhere to the two topic bans and keep Milburn off my TP ban list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I thought the ban from posting at RFA except through one nominated editor would be a block. I would note, you're still acting like you're dictating terms here, I see it more as you trying to convince consensus for your proposal over other proposals. Also on the TP Ban thing, while you're free to request editors not post on your page, that's not a ban, it's a request. Unnecessary violation of that request could be harassing behaviour but posting some warnings and notices wouldn't be the sort of thing the community would take action against in the same way they would with say an IBan. SPACKlick (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dictate terms, and I'm sorry if I give you (or anyone else) the impression that I am. I only think that it's fair that if I were to adhere to the three conditions in Amortias' proposal (which would address all the root causes of this discussion), then I should not be blocked. If I am blocked, then I should be able to come back with a clean slate. In response to your TP ban concern, I've changed the wording to "blacklisted", not banned. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose block – Blocks are not punitive, and should be utilized only after every other avenue is pursued. There is another proposal on the proverbial table above that should be tried before a block. I have found Bloom to be someone who not only can, but does make strong content contributions to the encyclopedia on a regular basis. While this does not excuse potentially detrimental behavior, it does mean we as a community should make an effort to try alternate avenues before a "block because it's easier" course. Go Phightins! 16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Block and work to find a way forward for Bloom6132. I'd like to see a couple of things though - firstly, obviously, that he drop the battlefield mentality and move on from this year's WikiCup, it's in the past and it's not worth getting blocked over and wrecking other bits of the project over. I would, however, strongly implore the organisers of next year's WikiCup to take onboard the complaint Bloom has raised and ensure similar issues are mitigated against in future, so something productive comes from this complete disaster area. Nick (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral - but agree with Nick, with however, strongly implore the organisers of next year's WikiCup to take on-board the complaint that has been raised all over the page here and insure similar issues are mitigated against in future, so something productive comes from this complete disaster area.- as he said above. Looks like strong words were flying around all over the place, maybe some neutral supervisors should participate next time? Looks like many harsh words were said on both parts, if blocks start to fall, they might be several that will be blocked. Hafspajen (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly agree with Hafspajen. Like I said previously, it takes two to start a fight. So if blocks are to be imposed, the other side must bear their share of responsibility for baiting, provocation and grossly assuming bad faith on me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Amortias's proposal, including the part where Bloom6132 brings RFA issues to Amortias's talk page. Looks a reasonable compromise to me, it's worth a shot. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd be more in favour of Amortias's proposal if this thread wasn't full of more of the same nonsense from Bloom (some of the comments display a mind-boggling lack of understanding- I'm not going to quote, just look up). If we are going to go ahead with a "three-month-behave-or-else" proposal, then we would need a ban from RfAs, a ban from anything WikiCup-related and a ban from listing users who are "banned" from his talk page, with the explicit understanding that anymore of this kind of behaviour result in a block. That seems quite reasonable to me, especially given the large number of people who are all for a block outright. (As I side note, can I express my unhappiness with Bloom's claim that if he is blocked, he will "reinstate" my "ban" on posting on his talk page. He is simply ignoring anything resembling the banning policy, and his comments about me and Yunshui need to be removed from his talk page immediately, whether or not he likes it.) J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, it requires co-operation from Bloom, the "If I'm blocked, then everything I have promised is void" behavior's not helping, and telling me that I can't comment on things because I'm supposedly under scrutiny by him isn't either. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• @J Milburn – You have no right to dictate what I can do with my talkpage. It is, after all, my own talkpage, not yours. I retain the right to control every part of my own account and my own userpages, so unless you plan to take the unprecedented step of taking that right away altogether as part of the "compromise", I suggest you drop that unreasonable demand altogether. It doesn't bode well with the sprit of reconciliation started with Amortias' proposal. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bloom, wrong again. Pages in a particular userspace "are not owned by the user". There is nothing in any policy or guideline that allows you "to dictate what [you] can do with [your] talkpage", nor anything that allows you to "ban" users from your talk page. I am not taking any "unprecedented step" in saying that you're wrong, I am just telling you what the Wikipedia policy on the matter is. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• You clearly haven't read WP:NOBAN – "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request". It is well within my jurisdiction to request certain individuals not to edit my talkpage. You have no right to ban me from requesting people not to edit my talkpage. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• It's a shame that you cherrypick policies just to fit your argument. The comments you made above (i.e. "I've been putting up with this", "more of the same nonsense from Bloom", and "whether or not he likes it") clearly demonstrate that you are pursuing my blocking purely out of vengeance, made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate against my previous interactions with you and to punish me for it. If you were genuinely for a preventative block, you'd accept my major concessions, as voluntarily disenfranchising myself is not something I take lightly at all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• You can request whatever you like to whoever you like. Depending on the request, they may or may not go ahead and do what you've asked. This is as true on Wikipedia as anywhere else. What I object to (among other things...) is you claiming that you have the right to "ban" people from your talk page, and especially listing people who are "banned" from your talk page for all to see. Concerning your second comment- the thought of you accusing someone of cherrypicking policies is hilarious. I see no reason to believe that you have any intention of behaving reasonably; as I've said (indeed, as you quoted), this thread is full of more of the same from you. If you want me to believe that you intend to change your ways, start right now. Drop the accusations. Stop playing the victim. Work on the assumption that other people are here/commenting for legitimate reasons. Stop being so confrontational. If you can't manage that, you seriously have to consider whether this is the project for you. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• No matter how you try to spin it, banning people from my talkpage has the same effect as requesting people not to post. Therefore, they are essentially the same. I see no problem in doing that, as it ensures no one will claim that they "didn't know" they weren't welcome on my TP. I'm sorry if my blunt and direct nature annoys you, but that's the culture I was raised in, and I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that. Addressing your second reply – since you're so keen on punishing me (in direct contravention of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE), I'll offer to indefinitely disenfranchise myself by never commenting on RFA again. Ever, even through raising concerns by a third party. I, however, will not accept your plan to ban me from the WikiCup – I haven't violated a single rule in my two years of participation, so your proposal is heavy handed and arbitrary to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Banning" means something very particular on Wikipedia; see WP:BAN. Someone you have asked not to post on your talk page is not "banned" from posting on your talk page. If you think they are, you are mistaken. There really isn't anything to debate in that regard- if you still do not understand this, just take my word for it. Whether you "see" a problem with listing users on your talk page, there is a problem- your refusal to understand that your behaviour is inappropriate and your refusal to change it (and I really don't care what kind of culture you were raised in- inappropriate behaviour is inappropriate behaviour, and I am not going to "just accept" inappropriate behaviour) is precisely why I feel you should be blocked, and precisely why a block of you would not be "punitive" (no matter how many times claim otherwise). I have not suggested that you have violated any WikiCup rules- I am talking about Wikipedia's rules. Your conduct has resulted in an awful lot of unhappiness at the WikiCup, you have wasted a lot of people's time, and eaten up a lot of people's goodwill. This is why I don't want you anywhere near it, even if you're still going to be on Wikipedia, and this is why my desire to be rid of you is neither heavy-handed nor "arbitrary". J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Being blunt and direct with regards to listing users on my talk page is hardly "inappropriate behaviour" – it's quite simple, if you don't want to be on that list, don't give me a reason to put you on there in the first place. And "inappropriate behaviour" has nothing to do with the culture I was raised in – stop lumping them together as they are two distinct and separate issues. Being blunt and direct is part of my culture. Inappropriate behaviour isn't. So if you're not going to accept my blunt and direct nature, you're essentially condemning me not for what I do, you're condemning me for what I am. All this coming from the same person who started this thread because he thought I was not "assuming good faith", who then proceeds to say, "I see no reason to believe that you have any intention of behaving reasonably". Which makes me wonder – where's your good faith? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do not object to your being direct (in fact, I generally prefer people to be direct), but some of what you call direct, I call inappropriate. (You're the one who raised your upbringing, which is and was irrelevant, so please do try to throw it back in my face. On a similar note, I've no interest in getting into arguments about what you do vs who you are.) I trusted that you were acting in good faith for months, but there's only so far I can go. And, to repeat myself once again, I would be more willing to assume that you have an intention of behaving in a reasonable way if you started now. You are still arguing the toss, still trying to turn conversations around to make yourself look like a victim and still treating Wikipedia like a battleground. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@J Milburn: could you post diffs or point us to diffs of anything in particular Bloom has done at WikiCup. Just for clarity. SPACKlick (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the diffs in my original post were at least somewhat WikiCup related. The opposition to Czar at Rfa was due to Bloom's belief that Czar acted inappropriately in the WikiCup, many of my quotes were from this thread on a WikiCup talk page and comments from after this thread was closed (my talk page and Bloom's) concerned the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support outright block - user's combative posts here and at WikiCup, and placing a banner on their talk page instructing other editors that they are "banned" from posting there, are clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Wikipedia is not about winning; if the user is here to build an encyclopedia, their apparent history of quality editing will serve them well in a block appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block - I was pretty disappointed at his childish tantrum at Czar's RFA. He needs to take it easy with his side Wiki-Cup stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block Weakly, and sadly. His behavior has stayed the same, and after more thought, a block may be in everyone's best interests. :( Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block In my opinion, the editor in question either is very likely trolling. We appreciate the contribs, but at this point - the editor does not appear to be editing to the benefit of this collaborative project. If you can't play well with others - you're going to have a bad time here. SQL^{Query me!} 07:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we all wind this down please?

First of all, WP:WIKICUP says "The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content improvement and make editing on Wikipedia more fun." This does not seem like "fun" to me. Perhaps J. Milburn could disengage, "unclose" the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#adding_rule and let the other two judges address the scoring issue? I see that judge Miyagawa asked a reasonable question here [3] but the discussion was overwhelmed with all the back and forth.

Secondly, Czar's going to be an admin in a couple days (current tally 78/3/3) and a couple months from now no one is going to care about a few opposes on their Rfa.

Bloom has a common but significant misunderstanding about WP:OWNTALK -- while "NE Ent's talk page" seems to imply it's mine, it's not, of course, the page is WMF's and the content is CC-SA licensed. User talk pages are community pages for leaving messages to users. While normally requests not to post on a user's page are honored under courtesy, they should just be made in normal dialog. The "declaration" about Yunshui atop the page falls within the spirit, if not the letter of, prohibited conduct under WP:ATTACK and I hope Bloom will remove it soon. NE Ent 23:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"This does not seem like "fun" to me." Agreed, and this is why I don't think Bloom should be involved in the Cup. As I said in my closure of the discussion in question, if someone else wants to pursue a rule change in the spirit of Bloom's proposal, I have no objection to that, but there's very little chance that that discussion will lead to anything productive. J Milburn (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I think you've missed the point. This isn't so much about some comments on an RfA, or a particular WikiCup thread, it's about a continuing pattern of toxic conduct and a continued denial of wrongdoing. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block I never heard of Bloom6132 before yesterday, but have now had the opportunity/obligation to read dozens of their comments, first at the Czar RFA, and now here. This editor is astonishingly combative about the most trivial of matters. There is no culture on Earth where this kind of behavior is considered appropriate or justified. This is a collaborative project to build a free encyclopedia. It is not a brutal, take-no-prisoners competition to win digital virtual "Wikicups" consisting of just a handful of electrons. Bloom seems to be out of control, and needs a "time out" to work on regaining appropriate human self-control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cullen328 on each of his points, but what exactly are we talking about here? Short term, long term, indefinite? Because if we're talking about indefinite, I'm not sure that's warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I am not arguing for an indefinite block at this time, NinjaRobotPirate, and would leave the duration in the hands of an experienced, uninvolved administrator. The last block was 24 hours so at least 48 hours, but am not sure that is enough time for the editor to disengage and calm down. Perhaps 24 hours for every tendentious, repetitive, aggressive post in this thread. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
      • A short block like that would seem alright, but I'm not sure that it's even necessary any more – unless he's actively continuing to disrupt conversations through confrontational/insulting language. Standard, progressive blocks seem reasonable. I hope we don't end up indefinitely blocking him. I never heard of him before his posts to ANI (and their tone greatly annoyed me), but I don't think we're anywhere near Niemti-levels of disruption/personal attacks... yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Perhaps 24 hours for every tendentious, repetitive, aggressive post in this thread. – clearly shows your support for a block is made solely for punitive and vindicatory reasons. Move to strike out Cullen328's "support block" vote from the discussion – it's made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate and punish. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was made in the hope that such a remedy might serve to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" which you seem to be continuing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Engaging in genuine discussion is most definitely not "disruptive behavior" as you grossly misrepresent it to be. Dishing out 24 hour blocks for every post I make here demonstrates you are trying to shut down dialogue, and your "suggestion" is clearly punitive in nature (whether you want to admit it or not). If you were genuinely interested in a "remedy", you'd have suggested something constructive (like Amortias' proposal above) or a block that is completely unrelated to the number of edits I make. Mind you, I've already stopped editing on RFA, the WikiCup scoring talkpage and have taken down my blacklist. So your assertion that "disruptive behavior" is continuing from me is more like a fantasy to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block : I think he should not be blocked, diffs only suggest that he is on the border, not that he violated the rules. He needs to be reformed and humbled. Per Go! Phigtins, we must remember that he is useful. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • {{This is a collaborative project...}} True, but the WikiCup is a competition, and it is the human condition that tempers flare during competitive events. In the real world cup, Andrés Escobar was reportedly murdered as a result of competition; so a little perspective is in order. Although Bloom's conduct hasn't been stellar the reaction to the criticism hasn't helped; disengagement, especially between Bloom and J. Milburn should be the goal, not what appears to bordering on a punitive block. Bloom is an editor with 14,000 64% mainspace edits; while that in no way exempts him from expected standards of conduct, it should inform our thought process on the best possible way to deescalate the conflict. NE Ent 04:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I have very little interest in having further interaction with Bloom if I can easily avoid it, but there is no way that this is some personal dislike between the two of us. The RfA, the previous block and the other people he's lashed out at over the WikiCup (in this thread, I've mentioned Adam Cuerden and ThaddeusB, but there are others) show that this is his go-to mode of interaction. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The root cause of this entire fiasco boils down to the fact that I am calling for a more fair and more transparent WikiCup competition (namely, the institution of a rule against "delayed updates"). Milburn, Adam Cuerden and ThaddeusB (among others) are totally against this much-needed reform. However, if I'm so "wrong" (or if consensus is completely against me), then why have Snowmanradio and Nick (in his above post) express support for my proposal, which actually stems from Sasata's call for the rule back in October 2012. Two years, more than two years have past, and yet our pleas for this rule have gone unheeded and have been ignored outright. It's peculiar how those who support my proposal are all neutral third parties who don't participate in the Cup, while those who are so adamantly opposed to reform are stakeholders who participate in this comp on a yearly basis. Now, according to Milburn, demanding a more fair and more transparent competition (which is entirely reasonable) is now falsely portrayed as a failure to assume good faith. Milburn – you can continue your "Blame Bloom" campaign and claim I'm at fault for everything all you want, but it takes two to start a fight. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• If you actually look at the facts (as oppose to emotionally-charged calls by Milburn calling for my block), it's fairly apparent and obvious that I have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. My sole intention is to improve Wikipedia; in this case, by making the WikiCup more fair and transparent. Think about it – if I was genuinely acting in bad faith, why on earth would I call for a rule that puts me at a disadvantage as well. I don't benefit one bit from having this rule in place; in fact, introducing it would be detrimental to me as it's one less "tactic" I can use. But I believe in honesty and integrity; unfortunately, the way my actions and intentions have been misconstrued and distorted in every possible manner are the exact opposite of that. If Milburn didn't hold such a big WP:GRUDGE against me (no matter how many times he claims otherwise), he would have accept Amortias' proposal of in which I make three generous concessions that cover all the root causes of this discussion. I'm giving up integral rights here, and if that's not good enough for Milburn, I honestly don't know what will satisfy him. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No Bloom, it's not obvious at all. You respond to the slightest question or criticism with aggression, it smacks of battle ground to me. The problem has been explained several times and you still don't seem to have cottoned on. Try re-reading this discussion as if it's about an editor you don't know it might help overcome the understanding issue. SPACKlick (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the talkpage blacklist naming Yunshui – there is no more blacklist on my talkpage. But if I'm ultimately blocked, I will most definitely reinstate it (with more names of course). I've accepted the three conditions and went above and beyond what I had initially promised. The ball's in your court now – I either remain unblocked while adhering to those three sanctions, or block me and the deal is irrevocably off the table. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to a suggestion I made [4], Bloom has also indicated [5] they'll be finishing up a DYK and then taking three weeks off. NE Ent 13:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

[JM here, I can confirm later if necessary.] Bloom, at no point have I suggested that you should be blocked because you support changing a rule in the WikiCup. In fact, as you know, I have repeatedly said that such a rule could potentially be useful, I just struggle to see quite what it would look like (and I have also said that I have no objection to another user opening up a new discussion/making a proposal concerning said rule). To suggest that I am after you because you're some kind of WikiCup critic is disingenuous. Just as this discussion is not about your upbringing, it's not actually about a WikiCup rule- it's about your combative and aggressive attitude. I have repeatedly explained that you are wrong to say that I am calling for a punitive block, and now that accusation seems to have turned into a claim that I have some kind of grudge, or that my request is "emotionally charged" (presumably meaning "irrational"). I agree that you have no good reason to be combative; my claim (which I have defended by pointing to diffs) is that you are overly combative (this whole "accept my terms or the deals off, and a load of new people are blacklisted from my talk page" stuff is yet another example). 143.117.85.213 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure whether I should even be interacting with an IP claiming to be Milburn. But judging from the same consistently patronizing tone telling me that "you are wrong", this seems to pass the WP:DUCKTEST. Once again, you misconstrue my words and intentions (not surprising though). I never said "accept my terms or the deals off" – don't put words into my mouth, that's simply unfair. Fact of the matter is you guys have a choice. Two options. I never said "you must pick option A, or else …" But each choice has its own consequences, and its up to the closing admin what that will be. I will accept either punishment, but I will certainly not accept both. Either a block or the 3 topic bans/conditions achieve the WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. But calling for both is punitive and vindicatory, and only serves the purpose of fulfilling – as you had unintentionally revealed above – "[your] desire to be rid of [me]". —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I endorse what User:NE Ent has said above, let us make sure that Bloom6132 has really got some reasons and the statements of the IP above proves him/herself to be a Wikipedia:DUCK. We can move further, Czar is probably going to become an admin and as for wikicup, it can be sorted without remembering about any of these conflicts. I would have originally supported the block for Bloom6132 if he was causing any kind of error on main pages or talk pages, but he is not doing so. I will refrain from talking about any other sides as our topic is Bloom6132 only. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is irrelevant; the IP said he's JM. Bloom continues to be combative in their posts here, saying they'll remove the battleground-y notice from their talkpage only if there is no block, but promises to put it back otherwise. That's not how it works here - they're defending their treating of the talk pages as battlegrounds and declaring that they intend to continue - that is not acceptable. There is no deal to be made here; the deal is: abide by community standards or be blocked. Reaffirming support for an outright block per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE #2 and #3. No conduct issues have been resolved here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

JM needs to confirm that he is that IP, before anyone makes any assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"the IP said he's JM" – yeah, just like many people will say they aren't engaged in sock puppetry even when they are. Point is, how do you know for sure – are you going to take a person's word as being the truth just because they said it is? Addressing your quote, "There is no deal to be made here" – you clearly didn't read my statement. I'm not proposing a deal. It's a choice that the closing admin will make, and – like everything else in life – there will be consequences for each of those choices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@IP who claims to be Milburn – "[A]t no point have I suggested that you should be blocked because you support changing a rule" – no, but you have equated my legitimate request for reform with refusing to assume good faith (a blockable offence). Hence, you are essentially calling for me to be blocked because I demand fairness and transparency (no matter how many times claim otherwise), which you are only now jumping on the bandwagon expressing lukewarm open-mindedness to the idea of having a rule that enshrines both. Delaying updates in order to deceitfully hiding points from other competitors is gaming/abusing the system. I'm simply calling a spade a spade, and I never implicated anyone in particular as being guilty of such malpractice. So your claim that I am "overly combative" is puzzling – to whom am I being overly combative there with that statement? Is demanding fairness and transparency really too much to ask for? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Bloom a legitimate request acting in good faith wouldn't imply other users were gaming the system it would say that users were disadvantaged by the lack of information without implying people were doing it deliberately. It wouldn't call them or their actions deceitful. They wouldn;t imply, as you did further up the thread, that anyone who disagree supports unfairness, and has no integrity. It's not the rule you asked for that lacked good faith it was the way you asked. SPACKlick (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SPACKlick – My comment implied any hypothetical competitor who engaged in behaviour such as delaying updates in order to hide points would be gaming the system. Calling these actions anything but deceitful would be utterly dishonest on my part (and I'm not the kind of person who tells lies – I say it as it is). A "lack of information" is therefore irrelevant if hiding points from other competitors is done deliberately. There's no lack of good faith in the way I asked, because there is no good faith to be assumed in such a hypothetical situation. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous poster claiming to be me was me. I stand by what I said. I consider my characterisation of Bloom as offering an "accept my terms or the deal[']s off" proposal as perfectly reasonable- to quote Bloom himself: "I either remain unblocked while adhering to those three sanctions, or block me and the deal is irrevocably off the table". J Milburn (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

• Question - Right now it looks like there is enough of a consensus to block, but I am wondering if the people who gave their opinions earlier think that a topic ban will be more effective in preventing further disputes/troublesome behaviour. Tagging Ritchie333, Cullen328, AmaryllisGardener, Ivanvector, Sergecross73, and Yunshui. I should note that, if a block were to be implemented, it would be first and foremost to prevent further disruption. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Disrupting what? Bloom's current activity Special:Contributions/Bloom6132 mostly consists of editing What Child Is This and some DYK stuff. They've been asked to disengage on the Wikucup stuff and they have. NE Ent 12:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• A topic ban from what, exactly? This is about the user's combative attitude everywhere they go on the project, here, at WikiCup, and especially on their own talk page. Behaviour for which they were recently blocked, and which they resumed when the block expired. No, I don't think a topic ban is preferable in this case. In the discussion above, I don't see a user who's understanding that their actions are viewed unacceptable by the community and agrees to change for the better, I see a user who's trying to bargain to avoid a block. Furthermore, the previous block didn't apparently encourage the user to check their attitude at the login screen, thus I see no reason at all to believe the user's simply going to step away from it now. I once again reaffirm support for a full block, which prevents the user's disruption from continuing, and which they can appeal by convincing an administrator that they genuinely understand the reason for the block and understand that they cannot continue that behaviour. Ivanvector (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• After much thought, I must oppose this also, it seems that Bloom has problems with his attitude wherever he goes. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Ivanvector describes the situation well. I agree completely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• This is another example of his inappropriate behaviour, assuming bad faith, somehow thinking a section break was a reference to his wikibreak. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't know what a "convenience break" meant until NE Ent kindly explained it to me. I thought Ivanvector meant that I was conveniently taking a wikibreak at this time (which is not what I'm doing). It's unfortunate how you had to assume bad faith here by labeling my honest misunderstanding as "inappropriate behaviour". If you're going to demand that I assume good faith, why don't you demonstrate the same too. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• You assumed that Ivan added that section in bad faith, you should have assumed good faith, but you did not. There is no question about whether you assumed good faith or not IMHO. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• No, I didn't. He didn't provide any explanation as to why he added such a heading. I've assumed good faith but – to paraphrase Milburn – Ivanvector has sure as hell "eaten up a lot of my goodwill". The way he deceitfully characterizes me as "trying to bargain to avoid a block" in the same edit that he adds the heading makes it very difficult for me not to assume that the two were linked. On the other hand, there is no question about whether you assumed good faith towards my misunderstanding – you clearly didn't. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• So, you misunderstood, I misunderstand things often, but that's not the problem. Saying things like "stop lying about my intentions" when you misunderstood is the problem. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Saying things like "stop lying about my intentions" is part of my misunderstanding, for which I apologize. The real problem here is your inaccurate characterization of my honest misunderstanding as "inappropriate behaviour", as well as dismissing it as me "somehow thinking" that – no, I actually thought that. Your claim that there's an assumption of bad faith is true – albeit it's coming from you, which you have still failed to acknowledge or apologize for. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I can see how the use of a section break titled "convenience break" at roughly the same time as Bloom posts a wikibreak notice is bad optics, but I assure you the addition of the header was merely for my convenience; the timing is an honest coincidence and any meaning read into it is a misunderstanding - I'm not sure if "good-faith" is the right word for it here but I don't find Bloom's assumption to be malicious, given the circumstances. I have changed the title to be descriptive to the proposal at hand. Apologies all around for the confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ivanvector's hit the nail on the head - RFA and WikiCup are not the underlying problem here, and so I don't see that a topic ban from either is an effective solution. I would hope that an editor whose behaviour is the subject of an extended ANI thread like this would be willing and/or able to take a step back and reflect on whether that behaviour is appropriate on Wikipedia, and perhaps make some adjustments to how they interact with other editors. Last night (when I saw this section, but didn't have time to compose a response), my gut feeling was that Bloom6123 was starting to make some progress in this direction; however the above exchange and diffs have convinced me that they still retain an intractable attitude that is not conducive to productive collaboration. I regretfully stand by my earlier recommendation. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from WikiCup and other contest related pages. Bloom has repeatidly (over multiple years) shown he takes the WikiCup way too seriously. It is not in his own best interest, or anyone else's, for him to participiate. I am certainly concerned about the general attitude shown as well and imagine it would carry over into a content dispute. However, since no eveidence of such as been shown at this time, removing the problem area (contests) should be tried as a less harsh solution to blocking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

break

This thread opened with the perfectly reasonable request for assistance in getting Bloom to stop their inappropriate combative attitude on the WikiCup and OP's talk page. That has been achieved. Furthermore, some neutral editors (e.g. Nick and Hafspajen) have indicated they see underlying problems with the Cup the should be considered. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the subsequent discussion has lived down to ANI's WP:PITCHFORKS reputation. We should be here to seek the least harsh solutions, not some sort of "justice." (We just, rightfully, don't do justice as explained at WP:NOJUSTICE.)

Unfortunately, the standard edit counter is down, but using this script User:Ais523/editcount, I get:

Edit count for User:Bloom6132
Counted at 10:40, Monday December 1, 2014 (UTC)
Article >5000
Talk 773
User 1390
User talk 717
Wikipedia 1050
Wikipedia talk 283
File 11
Template 602
Template talk 183
Category 5
Portal 39
Portal talk 4

(The script stops counting at 5000). Blooms' first edit was in 2010 [6]. They never had an issue I'm aware of before this wikicup stuff. While Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, let's not be like American tobacco companies (hey, correlation doesn't prove smoking causes cancer). Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, Wikicup makes it competitive. In the US, major sporting events include a large, visible police presence. The UK used to put fans in "caged in enclosures" [7]. Stories of crazed parents at kid's sporting events abound in the US.

Bloom had already removed the "banning" statement from the top of their page and pretty much agreed to disengage, as they need to prepare for finals in real life. Certainly in the US, it's the right time on the calendar for that. In this post [8] Ivanvector at least implies Bloom is fibbing a bit: "I don't see a user who's understanding that their actions are viewed unacceptable by the community and agrees to change for the better, I see a user who's trying to bargain to avoid a block." Is it any wonder Bloom, in a really boneheaded move, misinterpreted a fairly standard break?

Some editors see that as just more evidence of his 'combative attitude.' I see that as evidence this editor has spent four years mostly editing mainspace, and has so little experience on "dramaboards," they don't even recognize a standard discussion break. That's probably not a bad thing.

So, could we possibly just let Bloom walk away unblocked and gain little perspective? NE Ent 12:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, NE Ent is correct, that was a very boneheaded move on my part for honestly misinterpreting that break. And though I already apologized above for that, I'll take this opportunity to do it again and say that I am sorry to anyone offended. That'll be all from me here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Block, with comments. - I could not agree more with NE Ent's comment immediately above. Yes, Bloom has exhibited a combative attitude; yes, he indulged in a personal grudge "oppose" vote in a recent RfA; and, yes, he needs to drop the stick regarding the recent Wiki Cup. I have several points to make ---

1. If Bloom did not understand the community's increasingly low tolerance for treating RfA "oppose" votes and comments as a forum for score-settling, he certainly does now. I see no history of prior problematic behavior at RfAs, so the proposed topic ban is a solution in search of a non-existent problem.

2. Bloom has been a productive content-creating member of the community. Yes, he has been involved in several small dramas. Yes, he has placed far too much importance on the outcome of a meaningless "Wiki Cup" competition. No, Bloom would not be the first productive community member to wander into the weeds and lose sight of the forest. This is not a reason to block him; blocks are supposed to preventative, not punitive. Blocking him at this stage serves no valid purpose.

3. To the participants in this discussion, I say that the ANI pitchforks brigade also needs to drop the stick and gain a little perspective, too. The solution to every dust-up is not topic-banning and/or blocking productive registered editors who have wandered off the path. Sometimes, the best solution is issue the warnings and let the dust settle. There will be plenty of time for topic-banning and blocking later -- if necessary. As things stand now, topic-banning or blocking would serve no useful purpose.

4. Finally, to Bloom6132 I say: be careful, my friend. Law students are supposed to be smart; lawyers are supposed to be dispute resolvers, not the perpetuators of petty disputes. You have bigger things to do in life than getting involved in on-wiki conflicts and raising your frustration level/blood pressure. Treat this as a learning experience. A substantial number of your fellow community members see your recent conduct as problematic. Your best solution is to drop the stick, let go of the grudges, and modify your own behavior. It is not a sign of high-functioning intelligence to believe that your own opinion and behavior is correct when everyone else sees various levels of problems with your opinions, attitudes and behavior. If you continue to act as if you are right and everyone else is wrong, this is going to end badly -- now or sometime in the future. And something far more important than your participation in Wikipedia may be at stake. Please consider this carefully.

Unless someone else has something constructive to add -- beyond chastising Bloom6132, that is -- I suggest that it is time to close this thread and move on. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NE Ent: I strongly disagree that Bloom's combative attitude has been dealt with; if anything the thread above is evidence to the contrary, they're simply being combative here instead of where the problem was reported, and they're defending their combativeness, not understanding that it's problematic. Your comment on their talk page that they're digging themselves deeper by arguing with everyone here is exactly the point: their evidenced style is arguing with everyone, and it doesn't bode well for the user's participation in other topic areas if we ban them from this one. However, you seem to be quite passionate about letting this editor away with only a warning. I don't find your theory that the user is inexperienced on the drama boards all that convincing, given their goings-on at WikiCup and their recent battles at RfA (the ultimate drama board) but in the interest of resolving this I will take you up on it.

@Bloom6132:, the thread above is very strong evidence that your combative attitude is viewed unfavourably by the Wikipedia community, and there is consensus here per Crisco 1492 that you should be blocked for it, but since you are away for most of this month anyway a block would be mostly symbolic. So please consider this thread the strictest of warnings: your contributions are of high quality and very much appreciated, but if you continue to treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND you are on a short path to a long block. I would encourage you to consider staying away from WikiCup as it seems to be a source of consternation for you, but I will not support a topic ban. I hope that you do take the advice contained in this thread to heart and continue to be a valued contributor for a very long time. Best of luck on your finals. Ivanvector (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector. Also, I think this essay (which I cowrote) might help explain the problem with the talk page blacklist. Origamite^{is out right now} 17:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: I think you are almost entirely right, but there is one thing I want to pick up on in what you said: "Sometimes, the best solution is issue the warnings and let the dust settle. There will be plenty of time for topic-banning and blocking later -- if necessary." While I certainly agree, Bloom has received many warnings (and generally took them exceedingly badly) and, indeed, Bloom has been blocked before (recently). The reason I started this thread is that minutes after I posted a "final" warning on Bloom's talk page, he was up to the same stuff (then, given the fact that some people may consider me too "involved" to block and given the fact that I was "banned" from Bloom's talk page, I got cold feet and didn't actually block him myself). @NE Ent: I agree that competitive editing seems to have brought out the worst in Bloom. How do you feel about Thaddeus's suggestion of a topic ban from competitive editing (the WikiCup is just one on-wiki competition among many), given that Bloom signed up for next year's WikiCup on Thursday? J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think imposing a topic ban now would be hasty. I've found nothing puts Wiki stuff into proper perspective like time and real life. Let's see how things are when Bloom returns to editing. NE Ent 14:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Letting the dust settle and waiting is all fine but from the above I doubt doing so will encourage Bloom to look at how they communicate with other editors when they disagree. I just hope then next nomination, if it regretably comes, doesn't shy away like this one did. SPACKlick (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: This thread seems to have run its course now- can I suggest that you close it as appropriate? It seems to me that there are several mutually exclusive more-or-less reasonable proposals in the mix, so gauging consensus may be difficult; I am happy to consider whatever closure you make binding (allowing, of course, that any future problems may warrant a different response). J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps its the jetlag, but I'm not seeing much consensus for anything more than a stern warning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  Yep, a "stern warning" seems to be the consensus, which is utterly meaningless in the scheme of things. But away you go! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  While "utterly meaningless" is not an overstatement, such results do serve to help productive, reasonable editors to understand that the community has found their behavior to be unacceptable. Good faith editors in this situation will change their behavior. If they don't, then we can come back here, cite WP:LASTCHANCE, and bring out the pitchforks and torches again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Several Removals of Copyvio template from articles

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 Shevonsilva has been deleting several copyvio tags and has been creating nonsense articles repeatedly. Please reference pages Standard metre and Standard kilogram. Already warned to stop removing. War wizard90 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff to edits where Shevonsilva removed a copyvio tag? All I've found so far are a few removals of speedy deletion tags on self-created articles like [9], [10] but none of them were about copyright infringements. And none of the stubs created recently by Shevonsilva are nonsense, but valid additions. Perhaps we should have a List of obsolete units of measurement or some such but there's nothing wrong with creating a stub about an old unit of lenght or weight. De728631 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I made an error, the complaint was not for removing copyvio templates, but rather removing speedy delete templates, sorry for the confusion this caused. War wizard90 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@War wizard90: it is probably advisable to inform Shevon of WP:IINFO and WP:N, rather than tagging articles as nonsense, when they are not. —Dark 06:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls: I didn't tag anything as nonsense, I tagged two of Shevon's articles for being duplicates, she has created several other articles that other users tagged as nonsense, which when considered separately it seemed that they may be. In retrospect, apparently the user is creating several articles about measurement, which may or may not be notable. Either way like I said my original complaint was "supposed" to be for removing the SD tags on multiple occasions. Anyhow, I've moved on from it, back to patrolling, have a nice day. War wizard90 (talk) 06:45, 5 December 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.

Intensive stalking and disruption of behalve of an editor

I am being intensively stalked by User:Bobrayner. I have to say that he just lost it. He has been hunting me for couple of years now but after one recent case at Kosovo War now has intensified.

• He follows me and removes from a comment of mine a link I added at talk-page just to indicate a subject I was referring to (I intended only to ask about it, and then search for more reliable sources, I used whatreallyhappened.com just because it talked extensively about it). diff

• He follows me again, here, where I was asked by Smartskaft to help him on this and another article. I started with this one and I am having immediately bobrainer with his stuff on me.

• And then this, which just shows how much he is unable to keep calm on this matters. He removed the categories, the notes and references, everything, and not only once, but twice! Not to mention that he is edit-warring there while disrupting the article. No excuse.

• The he removes comments of IP just because they disagree with him, with the excuse of socks... yes right... even here at ANI! diff, diff, and on article talk-pages diff, diff then he lies and basically makes fun of it diff.

• Here reverts an experienced editor on the same sock excuse he always uses and abuses without ever presenting any evidence of someone being a sock. EdJohnston waned him already about it at here at ANI.

• Then he has childish anti-Serb edits such as these where just because a Serbian Olympic basket player has also Greek passport so he would not play as foreigner while in Greece, now as he is doing charity now he is not Serb, but Serb-Greek, its all so crazy and nonsensical.

• Not to mention the huge problems he has been creating at WP:MOSKOS which was archived trough long negociated consensus, and each time he noteces the users opposing his views are editing other things, he goes there and makes changes. And then has the indecency of acusing others of making changes when revert him! Just see the MOSKOS edit history. Even editors such as IJA who were on his side started reverting him as seen there or on this discussion.

Now he will probably say how he is fighting millions of socks, how I am nationalist Serb, however I am not nationalist and I have been contributing along people from all nationalities peacefully for many years now, with unfortunate clashes with POV-pushers like this case. I am really asking for the community to at least warn bob for this behavious or possibly sanction him of topic ban him. For the years I have been around I have to say that he is totally incapable of editing neutraly Balkan-related subjects, he is a very tendentious editor, who uses and abuses the sock excuse, and who is now an intensive obsessed stalker (he allwas was a stalker, but things have gone out of hands now). And I mentioned here only the most recent episodes, because this kind of things are a constant in his pattern on Balkans. He cannot even respect a consensuses which are reached. He may be productive in some other topics, but on Balkans he is extremely tendentious and he just lost it. FkpCascais (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Just another day in the Balkans...

1. FkpCascais has some copyright problems. In this particular case, adding a link to obvious copyright violations offsite. I don't understand why FkpCascais does things like this - WP:COPYVIO and WP:ELNEVER are perfectly clear - but the best course is to remove links to infringing content. That's not censorship, and it's hardly stalking, since that article has been on my watchlist for years, as a cursory look at the edit history will show.

2. Having tried to fix that problem, I noticed that FkpCascais' most recent edit was to add unsourced (and somewhat contentious) content to a WP:BLP. FkpCascais partly reverted me, but has curiously failed to provide a source for the claimed nationality that he's twice added to the article - and which is still there, because I'm not interested in a revert war. FkpCascais has been repeatedly sanctioned for editwarring on ARBMAC topics.

3. A little while ago I made a futile attempt at bringing March 2004 unrest in Kosovo in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. I removed a bunch of stuff which has been {{citation needed}} for years, and tweaked some other wording so that it followed sources closely. For instance, I changed "attacks on the Serbian people" to "clashes with Serbian people", since it cites a news article whose headline is about "clashes". I don't doubt that FkpCascais is enraged that I removed controversial claims that he hasn't been able to find a source for in the last four years; but don't blame me for that problem.

4 212.178.243.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an obvious sock. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. It's the same editor as 212.178.240.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who @Paul Erik: previously blocked for block-evasion. This sock canvassed Vanjagenije and FkpCascais to remove well-sourced content from the article; FkpCascais happily coöperated - as he has with other socks - and in this case used completely spurious excuses to remove the content which doesn't quite fit the Serb nationalist story. Strangely enough, the same story that FkpCascais' other edits have pushed. In this case, FkpCascais only made two reverts, whilst the sock made eight. Thankfully, there were other competent editors around to limit the damage, and then @EdJohnston: semiprotected the article. This was already discussed at length in the previous ANI thread that FkpCascais started a few days ago, at WP:ANI#Insistingly_adding_contentious_material_without_adding_a_proper_sourcing. In that thread, three other editors (@AndyTheGrump:, @The Banner: and @Biblioworm: all pointed out that the content which FkpCascais and the sock were editwarring to remove as "unsourced" did actually have a perfectly good source. Since that thread didn't deliver the result that FkpCascais wanted, he simply started a new thread here.

... and so on. This is getting tiring. Why do I bother? FkpCascais has a nasty habit of adding contentious unsourced content to BLPs, copyright violations, ARBMAC pov-pushing &c but I've barely tried to fix a fraction of them, and those I do try to fix are met with automatic reverts, deeply misleading dramathreads that FkpCascais posts here, and of course the everpresent socks. More recently, FkpCascais has taken to sniping at me on completely unrelated pages, but apparently I'm the stalker... bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I swore to myself that I wouldn't waste any more time on this, but...

Peja Stojaković Children's Foundation was an article mentioning a "Serbian-Greek" basketball player, without proper sources. A new editor removed the "Greek" bit. I reverted, and added a source which mentions the basketball player's Greek nationality. Any uninvolved editor can see this is simple, harmless, and benevolent: I reverted a deliberate factual error, and added a source to hitherto-unsourced BLP content. Yet FkpCascais comes here and starts another thread attacking my edits as "crazy", "nonsensical", "childish anti-Serb edits". This says more about FkpCascais than about me. How long do we have to tolerate these Balkan pov-warriors? bobrayner (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Funny how Serbian-born Serbian Olympic player for him suddenly becomes Serbian-Greek, but Šarplaninac which is registered as Serbian at FCI with no mention of Kosovo suddently becomes Kosovar :) Funny how he starts an entire section at Kosovo War about morale just to add the content he was very interested in highlighting (which was btw agreed by all editors at this discussion not to be used in a separate section as he insisted, and soon after he edit-wared again to insert it without discussion. Funny how he failed to get WP:MOSKOS reworded his way, but he still edit-warred there and went on in many articles removing it despite consensus to use it. Funny how he distorts things saying I was repeatedly sanctioned for edit-warring when any admin can see the truth. Funny that he accuses me of trying to find a source for years of an article I didn't ever edited (here is a nice exemple of how he clearly lies) and I simply used here as exemple of his disruption (diff and twice!). Then he talks blabla about me but has brought the hardest evidence here. Anyone can check my edit-history and confirm my reputation. Just to finish, I was using the word "funny", but it was ironic, as none of this dealing with this user is funny at all, but rather disturbing. FkpCascais (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais, stop lying about me and about your edits. Stop it now. Your personal attacks stalking, drama-threads, pov-pushing, copyright violations, and endless tag-teaming and coöperation with sockpuppets are not welcome. I'm tired of the walls of text, but if anybody else would like diffs or more details on any of the concerns I've raised in either of FkpCascais' AN/I threads, I would happily oblige. bobrayner (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I never lied about my edits, you are the one pulling them out of context here. The first diff was after cleaning a mess that banned User:James Lindberg and his IPs do. Only users such as Favonian and Jingby know the mess he makes in obscure articles and how stubborn and disruptive he is trough new accounts/Ips ever since. The second diff was at my talk page to a user who came saying Albania deserves to become Greater Albania and how it shrinked because other nations took their land (anyone can see the discussion). But interesting that you brought it here, because that may be a good exemple of how I have good and cordial relation with editors even after such disagreements as seen in a conversation I just had with that same user just days ago (see: User_talk:Eni.Sukthi.Durres#Kosovo_league). The third diff, well, I beleave all senior admins knows pretty well how Direktor can be hard to deal with in discussions, so what is your problem with an issue that had nothing to do with you? The Serbian Empire issue is because I added sourced text which you would like to see removed, but a good-faith editor would rather assist me there. But your point is clearly different: you fail to understand that a kings title is not the same as country name...

Regarding your "cooperation2 accusation, anyone can see what I suggested to that user at Jimbo talk-page and here.

What happends here is that Bobrainer is a hard-line Albanian POV-pusher on Balkans related articles. His interests obviously coincide with editors of some other nationalities Serbs had troubles in the past, so they often tag-team. Troughout the years they have done its best to remove Serbian editors so they could freely edit the controversial issues in an anti-Serbian POV, and often succeded. There are only 2-3 Serbian editors left plus me. None of us (User:No such user, User:Vanjagenije, or User:Zoupan) is nationalist or anything similar but we became targets of this POV-pushers for an obvious reason.

Also, I know pretty well bob you scrutinize all my edits constantly, and this diffs you presented here are my worste "crimes" you could get, so don't pretend this thread is about me, its about you, so better start explaining things like this and the others I pointed out. FkpCascais (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban FkpCascais

This is now the second time that I see FkpCascais misusing AN/I to get rid of an inconvenient user. For the best interest of the neutral encyclopaedia, I propose a rather long topic ban ( a year or more) for all subjects related to Kosovo and the Kosovo War. The Banner talk 09:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course you do, in revenge for having reported you for edit-warring and refusing to add a page number to a controversial edit which you were reinserting despite having been agreed in a previous discussion not to have it included the way you and your college were doing. I opposed it, so I must be removed :) so the two of you can freely do whatever with those articles. The two of you behave disruptively, and you propose me to be topic banned for reporting you? FkpCascais (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As said before: you used the missing page number as a rather lame excuse to remove a perfectly valid but inconvenient piece of information. And now again you go on the attack with the same excuse. Enough is enough, sir. The Banner talk 12:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Slow-motion 3RR

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,

Мехтех (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in a slow-paced edit war over Airborne aircraft carrier. They insist on adding material which does not belong there, repeatedly doing so on [13 Nov],[15 Nov], [22 Nov], [26 Nov], and now on [4 Dec].

This is effectively a slo-mo breach of 3RR.

We have discussed this on the talk page at Talk:Airborne aircraft carrier#Carrier aircraft and aircraft carriers, and warned the user both there and on their talk page:User talk:Мехтех#November 14.

This user is clearly unwilling to play by our rules. Can somebody block this account for say 1 month to try and get the message across? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

He's now been fully warned. He's repeatedly adding something about a Russian aircraft carrier that people on the talk page don't believe fits with this article. If he reverts again, report at WP:AN3 or leave me a message. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry, I forgot about AN3. I am happy for this discussion to be closed now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:19, 5 December 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.

IBAN violations by User:The Rambling Man, further evidence

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 2014 Grozny clashes

Well, once again, TRM has reverted my edits in violation of the IBAN and in support of his opposition to an ITN nomination: diff 1 Diff 2. I have restored the material, and am bringing it to admin attention again. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's where I originally added the material which TRM reverted in full: diff

Here's TRM once again reverting me after he's been notified of this complaint, and of his previous reversion: diff μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Zomg. Oh my god, I had no idea. I'm so sorry, I can't even believe that Medeis was editing mainspace articles, when did that start? I'm glad she reverted my edits and hopefully she'll revert all the other improvements to the article I've made. Now then, can we rapidly get to the end game where someone decides this is it? I am now beyond sick of this endless game-playing and double-teaming to get me chastised, blocked, desysopped, whatever. I have no more energy for this. Let the show commence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming this comment is sincere, I am just going to revert your edit

Sure, undo all the improvements I made. That'll really help the encyclopaedia, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs and previous evidence of TRM's IBAN violations. I don't want TRM banned or Desysopped, although his suggestion is interesting. I want the IBAN enforced, and it is solely he who keeps violating it. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Here we not only have TRM deleting material, but also restoring tags when previously attributed material, and material directly quoted by the refs given (WaPO and NYT) is provided. The action is petulant, and has nothing to do with improving the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis directly reverts my edits? Come on.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice that not only is TRM reverting my edits because they are mine, but also reverting identical edits by other users Catlemur when they coincide with mine. Please note the two refs at the end of the sentence directly support the claim TRM challenges. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that it is evident that neither editor understands WP:ATTRIB. But never mind, we got there in the end, didn't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please note the article has been posted, regardless of TRM's personal attacks against the editors contributing to it. diff. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  Personal attacks? I'm glad all the work I put into the article has yielded a successful outcome! The Rambling Man (talk)

• @Medeis and The Rambling Man: Alright, now that y'all have had your say about this matter, could y'all just let it rest until others respond here? I'm sure the last thing either of you wants to do is bicker with/about each other (or at least I would hope), so take a break and disengage for a while while other people take a look. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not happy about this. The Rambling Man was clearly trying to improve the article, yet Medeis reverts [11] with an edit-summary of "IBAN prevents TRM from undoing my edits" despite the fact that the edit she inserted is full of errors (the dates should be in brackets, and the sentence "The 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis begun by Chechen and Ingush insurgents ending with the death of 385 people." is illiterate). Sigh... Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Calling TRM's actions improvements is largely a joke. (He opposed the article at ITN and tagged and reverted the article repeatedly.) Here I doubled the article's length. Here I added a background section and here TRM reverts it entirely. Here TRM reverts a section, and due to his own action, downgrades the article to a stub. Of course TRM did do some dash formatting with rude edit summaries, which anyone who wants can read by checking the page history.

If there was a problem with the dates not being in brackets, (and I admit I have no idea what you are talking about, User:Sigh), TRM could have simply added said brackets. Instead, TRM opposed the nomination, and repeatedly reverted material he was aware I had added, including hidden comments, that raised the article above stub status.

TRM's rather nasty "cleaning up your mess" edit summaries are there for all to see. And, nevertheless, the article got posted. Bottom line is, TRM repeatedly attacks me and reverts me while I do nothing of the sort to him. There's an IBAN between us and if it won't be enforced when he breaks it I expect it to be lifted. If that needs to be addressed at some sort of double secret probation page, please let me know. Otherwise, please tell TRM to cut out the endless violations of the IBAN, and penalize him if he doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Both TRM and Medeis are valued contributors, but it seems that they are largely incapable of being around each other without getting on each others nerves. There is already an IBAN in place, but it doesn't seem to have ended the issues and it has bounced back to ANI repeatedly. In part, that is because many people seem reluctant to block either party over this silliness, but it is also because there is a lot of subjectivity about what counts as "interaction" especially when you both seem to want to participate at many of the same pages. With that in mind, maybe it is time to consider adopting some rules that are less subjective. My suggestions would be:

1. Medeis and TRM may not comment in any discussion section (e.g. talk page thread, ITN nomination, Ref Desk thread) where the other person has already commented.
2. Medeis and TRM may not edit any article, Wikipedia page, or other content page that the other person has previously edited within the prior 24 hours.

The initial violation of such rules may be enforced by reversion (optional) and the issuance of a warning to the violating party. Such reversions and warning may be performed by anyone. Any subsequent violation at the same location after a warning is to be enforced by a 24 hour block.

Personally, I think such rules amount to treating Medeis and TRM as something akin to petulant children who can't stand to be in the same room, but maybe that is what needs to happen here. If both parties want to agree to this arrangement, I would be willing to be one of the people to help enforce it. If either Medeis or TRM would prefer some different outcome here, then I would like to hear some suggestions for other concrete and easily enforceable rules that could put an end to the arguments. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

PS. I started writing this before TRM was blocked; however, I continue to think that less subjective rules that create a greater degree of separation might be helpful here. Dragons flight (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Subjective? Absolutely not. There's not a single accusation against me or BB, and moral equivalence to avoid taking sides between victims and wrongdoers is simply evil. Start a new thread showing misbehavior on my part. (I have no problem with TRM continuing his contributions at ITN and elsewhere, subject to the IBAN, which also constrains myself and others.) TRM's had a year to do so. This IBAN was worked out over several months last winter with input from dozens of editors, and all that has happened is what needs to happen: the IBAN has been enforced. Can someone re-archive and fully close this? μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me be careful to say that I don't think you are equivalent, either in general, or in this particular sequence of events. In my estimation, TRM pushes the boundary more than you do. That said, even if you do it less often, pushing the IBAN boundary has not been entirely one-sided. For example, a month ago TRM posted an ITN and you were the first one to call for it to be pulled (i.e. in effect, directly criticizing his action). Over the months, I've noticed several other examples where I would say you are commenting on something TRM did, and given how often you overlap at ITN and Ref Desk I don't think it would be hard to find others. I'm not going to go digging for examples, as I not trying to be hostile towards you nor would I want any actions to be taken based on old evidence. However, I do want to make the more general point that both of you could avoid a lot of grief if you would both do a better job of staying away from each other. I suggested some rules to create more of a separation, but if you don't want that, then fine. I don't plan on forcing you into it. Dragons flight (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: A one-sided ban, despite a breach by Medeis too? Laser Brain, your name does not live up to your action here. It's either both or none, because at the moment your action is a poor one. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment So let me get this right: An incompetent editor adds incorrect information to an article and when noticed, an editor of good standing fixes it. The good standing editor is then banned for "interacting" with the incompetent editor and the incompetent editor is allowed to continue on his mission of writing bullshit which has more holes in it than cheese. What a sad state of affairs! Cassianto^talk 10:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BANEX allows "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once)." So although opening the ANI request in response to an obvious WP:IBAN violation re "undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)," the repeated replies after TRM posted were violations, too. NE Ent 10:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to see past the rules sometimes as in some cases, the rules just don't work, like here. It is tragic that we elect to honour the rules of an essay over fixing incorrect information to the encyclopedia. We have to ask ourselves this, what is more important? We, after all, are all here to improve the project which TRM has done. Having to speak to someone he has had previous issues with is part of the course. Cassianto^talk 10:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Although TRM did not act wisely here in letting himself get sucked into this, I do not understand why Medeis was not also blocked - not even warned! - for breaching the IBAN e.g. Medeis reverting TRM by reference to the IBAN (!!), removing a stub tag that TRM had added, his interaction with TRM above... No wonder TRM feels unfairly treated. Were it not the case that I have previously said in these discussions that I regard my WP-friendship with TRM as disqualifying me from using admin tools around him, I would consider either unblocking him or blocking Medeis, given the disparity of treatment. Perhaps Laser brain would care to comment. Bencherlite^Talk 11:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• This is not a good block, although it may have been less bad if Medeis had been blocked as well; I don't understand why she hasn't been. It does not look good for Wikipedia when an editor is blocked for edits that improved the encyclopedia, whilst the other party is not sanctioned for edit warring errors into the article. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comments Good morning, everyone. I knew this block would be unpopular and that I would wake up today to various criticism, both public and private. It's all been fair for the most part, so I'll do my best to expound on what seem to be the key questions: Why did I block TRM, and why didn't I block Medeis?

I thought my reasons for the first were clear. As noted, this has been going on for a year. I tried to mediate this situation back in January, and it finally evolved into an IBAN which had strong community consensus at the time. It's been completely without teeth up until now, for various reasons. I've been monitoring it, though, especially the firm warning from Bishonen to TRM back in May that if he continued to "pick at his topic ban" he would be blocked. He's continued the same behavior. I spent an hour reviewing diffs last night before I finally decided that a block might send a message that it's not acceptable. Nothing until now has appeared to get that message through. Sadly, he's still trying to claim that he's not targeting these editors with his digs.

Why didn't I block Medeis? Simply, this and other times it has been TRM who has decided to enter the arena, whether he wants to admit it or not. He decided to get involved directly where Medeis was working and start a conflict. I don't think Medeis reacted ideally to this situation, and as NE Ent pointed out, they should have reported the violation and walked away. I accept blame for not issuing a warning to Medeis, but I don't think they should be blocked. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this project, we are often lenient with editors when they react badly to provocation. This was my logic.

All that said, I don't (and never do) have a problem with anyone undoing my actions if they are seen to be incorrect. I personally will not be unblocking TRM because, looking at his Talk page, I don't see that he has accepted any responsibility or even that he's erred in the slightest. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well you may have 'had the guts to block an admin', to paraphrase one of your talk page fans, but it's a shame you don't have the ability to see when you've been played by Medeis and the tag team that has brought this to ANI 4? 5? 6? times already in order to kid an admin into taking the wrong step. Not blocking Medeis for being as equally culpable as TRM is very, very poor: you need to "have the guts" to own up to poor decisions sometimes too, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's tone it down. I recommend starting a fresh discussion about how to create a successful interaction ban, if one is needed, and if we can't get something that works, I recommend taking the matter to arbitration so that it can be finally resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, the ad hominems start, eh SchroCat? I'm not a 'fan', I've never interacted with Laser Brain before that I can recall and his talk page certainly isn't on my watchlist. Try not to hurt your back stretching so far to make a martyr out of TRM. You'd think after comment after comment by TRM about Medeis in conversations that had nothing to do with TRM but he interjected himself so many times about Medeis got involved might someday deserve some form of "reminder" to TRM to stay away from Medeis. They do not get along, they are disruptive when they interact. That is the point of an interaction ban. TRM might be the more quality editor, but if we are not going to enforce a community consensus for an IBan to avoid disruption then you might as well get rid of IBan's all together and create a ladder of quality editors with a rank order so we all know the people above us not to piss off and we know the people below us we can pick on. Better yet, create a page of levels and achievements so I can get level 90 and pawn all the n00bs with my epic Sword of I'm Awesomesauce and we can really make this an RPG instead of trying to maintain some level of decency and collaboration.--v/r - TP 17:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no ad hominem comments, so please do not try and smear by innuendo. I am also not trying to make a martyr of anyone, so perhaps you should re-read what I've written. To clarify (I.e. To repeat so you don't have to search through for the three of four times I said this): the block was poor because both were culpable and if you block one, you need to block both. That's it, end of story, so there's no need for you to try and prolong the dramah needlessly, and certainly not against me. Perhaps next time you should keep your comments to yourself, especially when the affair is largely resolved? - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 5 December 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.

Unblock request, etc.

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

---

I would like to ask that The Rambling Man's block be lifted, provided that Medeis agrees.

This is by no means a criticism of the admin who blocked him. I just think unblocking is the fair thing to do at this point.

As regards the interaction ban in general, it was apparently imposed "by the community", not by ArbCom, which perhaps allows more flexibility. Once a year has passed, which would be sometime in January as I recall, the ban could be altered or abolished. All things considered, that might be the best thing going forward. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep block - While I am willing to acknowledge TRM's contributions to the project, their abrasive manner and flouting of the IBAN is more than enough reason to uphold this block. I speak here as a longtime contributor at ITN who finds TRM highly unpleasant and uncollegial. I make no comment on blocking anyone else, but am moved to speak out here in support of an admin action I agree with. Frankly I would support an extension, given the lack of contrition currently expressed on their talk page. Jusdafax 11:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Unblock It is not at all clear who he was referring to or responding to with his post, that and Medeis has been running to this board repeatedly trying to get TRM blocked, ala The BetaCommand saga, where enough crap was thrown on the wall that something finally stuck.

Bad block all the way around, unblock suggested. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep block I'm somewhat in two minds about this. One the one hand, I agree that this wasn't the best thing to block over since it appears TRM's edits were largely improving wikipedia even if the motiviations are suspect. On the other hand, from the little I've seen TRM has been flouting their IBAN regularly, usually by jibes clearly directed primarily at one or both of the people they have an IBAN with even if the person isn't named and the post is indented generally. So we could unblock and then just wait for the next violation and block again. But I get the feeling if we unblock now we're far less likely to block again in the future and it's clear that something has to be done to convince TRM (and probably μηδείς) to stop their IBAN violations. And this was an IBAN violation, even if the for once, they were actually doing something useful rather than simply sniping at others. Ultimately, as with most bans, when you've lost the right to carry out certain edits, you've lost the right. It's acceptable to sanction you for your edits even if they seem to be helpful, particularly when you've persistently violated your ban and generally not in such a good way. Dragon's Flight comment above is also a good summary of my thoughts. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep block - Had TRM not made his "interesting comments" above, I would support an unblock, but he appears to regard this as recess time in an elementary school playground :(. It is,moreover, disingenuous to believe TRM was not making remarks about those whom he is IBanned from. Collect (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• This page isn't votes for (un)blocks. I've discussed the matter with the blocking admin and unblocked. No further action is required, unless there is a future breach of the interaction ban. TRM has been very thoroughly informed about it and knows he risks a block for any violation, so hopefully there will be none. Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 5 December 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.

Request from EChastain re blocked user Lightbreather's continuing to post allegations against me on her 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 would appreciate that something done regarding blocked Lightbreather who continues to post allegations against me on her talk page. She was blocked 1:00, 1 December 2014 by Salvio giuliano for socking, and her block modified after another sock of her's was discovered removing comments from her on an arbcon talk page. Since her block she has used her talk page to provide a running list of allegations against others, but primarily against me in an attempt to prove I'm a sock of Sue Rangell (and without notifying me when she is doing so). Another editor has been ferrying her "evidence" to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell[12] and updating them.[13] Anyone looking at the actual evidence in her diffs can tell the evidence is ridiculous. Contrary to Lightbreather's claims I registered my account on 20:23:09 12/10/2014, before she announced she had been driven off wikipedia, so my motivation to open an account was not her announcement. I have no idea why she's picked me to target as Sue Rangell's sock.

Today (4 December) she added (bolding hers): "If she did discover my real-life ID, then Sue Rangell knows that I have a personal connection to a place that was the topic of the very first article EChastain edited[14] after creating her account." Her continued posting of evidence against me resulted in me over-defending myself (as I've been told by several editors) and afraid to edit articles because Lightbreather may spuriously connect me to Sue Rangell somehow through another article edit. This is extremely stressful.

I request that either Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell be closed, or Lightbreather's be prevented from adding further evidence against me on her talk page. EChastain (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, the gift that keeps on giving. Where to start? The users referred to here but not mentioned are, I presume, TParis and Gaijin42, two editors in whom I have some faith. TParis is an admin: if Lightbreather's commentary was problematic he could have chosen to revoke talk page access. Also, that SPI will be closed when someone gets to it and sifts through the evidence. That your account, your edits raised some suspicion should not come as a surprise to you, a seasoned editor.

  Having pontificated one way, there's another way as well. I think it's been a few days since TParis was involved on that talk page, so while he may not have considered Lightbreather's activity to be problematic, by now it's a bit much: let's remember that for a blocked user the talk page is to request unblocks--continued contributions to an SPI while serving a block for socking and outing (ah, the irony!) is not what the talk page is for. Now, Lightbreather has yelled at me enough for her to claim that I'm INVOLVED, so I won't yank TPA, but I think another admin should have a careful look at this: this ongoing involvement with investigations in other editors, I don't think this is OK. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Drmies! I think quite a few admins consider themselves involved, so many editors having had unpleasant experiences with her. I've spent the day looking into her archives since she started editing a little over a year ago. Nothing good there; she caused a lot of disruption. She disregarded all the suggestions of her mentor, StarryGrandma, but left one of her "I am retiring from Wikipedia" messages to her with "I wanted to make my last edit to be a goodbye to you." If only! I'm losing interest anyway. If editors like her are coddled, then no wonder wikipedia is losing editors! EChastain (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Propose one or two way IBAN EChastain is to steer clear of LB and LB is to stop with her pursuit of EChastain. Enough is enough, I and a few other editors have been trying to refuse the problem with no luck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, Crazy! The only interactions I've ever had with Lightbreather were when she posted on my talk page, when I tried to help her after her block (big mistake - have you actually looked at those diffs?), and my replies to her evidence, which she completely ignored, habbing it and eventually removed. I have no desire to have any contact with her at all. I think you don't understand what's been going on. I really wish you'd just look through her archives (they're very short) so you'll see a little more her MO. She's a one case example of why Eric Corbett is absolutely right in his views about civility. EChastain (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Im not going to bring Eric into this as it has nothing to do with him, what I am proposing is a one way ban that deals with LB interacting in anyway towards you. I feel enough time has been wasted here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to bring Eric into this! Don't know where you get that idea. It's just that all this is about the GGTF arbcom where some were outraged that he wasn't banned for incivility. And Lightbreather perfectly illustrates that civility is not a matter of using "bad" words. She's been disruptive for over a year, but because she's civil she's enabled. Don't bother with a one-way ban. I don't care anymore. In fact, it's becoming funny. EChastain (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well if you don't care anymore and im using your words here then why did you start this topic in the first place here? At lest three editors have told you so far to just ignore it something you have yet to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's your responses to this whole thing, starting with the userbox issue, that leads me to think this whole thing is ridiculous. You don't seem to understand anything I say. Like thinking I want to bring Eric Corbett into this. Did you pay any attention to the arbcom where Lightbreather was caught to be extensively socking? Then caught again, after she was blocked? That was about Eric Corbett, and editors like Lightbreather completely vindicate him in my eyes. EChastain (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying either, a one way I-ban here would prevent LB from interacting with you. you are the one who threw Eric's name in here not me. What is clear is that you are going after LB just as LB is going after you. Yes LB socked she was banned so in turn she accused you of socking as for the incivility bit that comes down to opinion. Are you trying to compare editors in terms of civility? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, Knowledgekid87, after you posted on her talk today, her edit summary (in which she removed your post) had to be redelved (or whatever the word is).[15] And now she's assembling evidence against that IP 172.56.9.95, whose comment you supported on her talk. EChastain (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, look im not saying you are wrong LB is behaving really badly that is clear but per WP:ROPE if she does continue the behavior do you really think she is going to be around much longer? You are going after LB because you feel she gets away with a-lot am I right? The SPI will close and nothing will be done, when her block is up if she continues then she will be re-blocked for a longer period of time if she continues to disrupt, that is my prediction. At least you are listening to others here more than LB. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

yeah, I don't really care what happens to Lightbreather, and I'm starting to enjoy her continuing talk posts road show, now that I've figured out that TParis actually posted twice for her on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell, but wasn't transparent about it, so I couldn't tell what was going on. But transparency isn't a strong suit of wikipedia, as who ever those are who allege cabalism are kind of right I think. I'll withdraw this whole thing. Don't want the circus of ineptness to stop! So . . .

I request to withdraw this ANI request. EChastain (talk) 06:14, 5 December 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:MatteoNL97 is rewriting various firearm list and redefining terms to match his point of view

User:MatteoNL97 is rewriting various firearm lists and redefining terms to match his point of view.[16] While he requests help to fix any errors he has made, in reality he reverts any edit that contradicts his POV. I request that other editors please look in to this matter. Thank you--RAF910 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if it's our good ol' friend User:Ctway...after I finish my sandwich. ansh666 05:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Resumed disruptive editing and socking across multiple 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.

---

Reported last week.[17] 99.247.57.5 has again started to revert to his preferred version.[18]-[19]-[20] He should have requested unblock on his main account, User:HistoryPK14, which is still blocked. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not a checkuser, and can not convincingly identify the IP and the blocked user, but the behaviour and the block log of the IP was sufficient for me to block them for 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I tried to get the IP to discuss the changes they wanted to make and wait for their unblock (it maybe so that the IP has considered their block as "expired" since their block didn't match that of the username and the IP was their original editing identification; suggest matching user and IP block to same interval). On a side note, I had notified WT:PAK of this major split of article when all this started and a content discussion is in place. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, don't forget to increase block length of User:HistoryPK14. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I will not do it unless there is a clear proof that this is the same person.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

See [21], User:User:HistoryPK15(not 14) was blocked indefinitely. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Now I see that there was a good reason, but Favonian already reblocked them indefinitely.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Favionian blocked and tagged by 12:00. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:11, 6 December 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.

Quercetin

• Quercetin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rozo93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Isabel.guillen.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• M.diop2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editorial work on this page is being made challenging by the persistent insertions of material that does not meet WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS. Novice users, who members of WT:MED group say are known students in a university-level biology course, are inserting material repeatedly without acceptance by experienced Wikipedians. On one student user's Talk page, Rozo93, is stated that the inserted content is needed to demonstrate proficiency for a biology assignment! I'm requesting a block of 3 novice editors sparring on the Quercetin article content: Rozo93, Isabel.guillen.5 and M.diop2011. Zefr (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Have fully protected for a week as two of the users were simply adding plagiarism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Zefr, I've already discussed this with Doc James. I've run similar course based Wikipedia editing assignments for several years with very good results and have not had a problem of this magnitude before with improper referencing. The students know the difference between primary and secondary sources, but I'm guessing that this was in part a case of laziness. One or more of them did not actually read what they were referencing, and they did not read the detailed |instructions provided for them. I will deal with the plagiarism internally and the offending students will not be attempting to edit the Quercetin page again. My apologies, NeuroJoe (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I only found obvious problems with two of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is admin action required? Yes. I disagree with the professor's characterization of his course work, and that he is now operating his course outside of the Education Program is creating a problem. What occurred at quercetin is pretty much the same as meat puppetry, with a group of editors working in collaboration. NeuroJoe should be told to register a course and work with the Education Program, or perhaps admin tools need to be used to encourage him to do that.

From my response to NeuroJoe at User talk:Doc James: We don't know if what you represent is true because a) you have apparently decided to no longer run a course page, making it harder for us to check your students' edits, and b) your students tend to edit on obscure topics, so the problems may be going undetected. Even more so now that your course has essentially "gone underground" (no course page).

Certainly, as to past problems, your students did not understand primary sources when I encountered them in 2011, and my experience with your course led me to resign as FAC delegate to attempt to get some change (unsuccessful) in the Education Program. Your students' involvement forced me to clean up an obscure topic from my content area about which there is basically NO secondary review information, period, so I was forced to carefully use their primary sources to fix their work. The article is a stretch, since it is basically trying to eek permissible information out of primary sources.

So, now, you are appear to be operating outside of the Education Program, making more work for regular editors (these problems should be dealt with by the paid staff of the Education Program, not us), and making it impossible to know who your students are and which articles they may have damaged with copyvio.

And your statement that "all stand in much better shape" is not because of your students. I had to edit the obscure klazomania stub into compliance with policy and guideline, spending inordinate amounts of time trying to correct your student edits on an obscure topic that gets less than 20 page views per day. That article is improved because of MY time, not your students, and my time could have been used more productively elsewhere. And, of course, for all the time I in good faith invested in mentoring and bringing them up to speed on Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines (holy cow, see my article edits and the talk page and my talk interaction with them), not a one of them returned or stayed on as Wikipedia editors, which is pretty much 100% true for all student/courses. YOUR course caused me to stop enjoying and stop editing. While you are running a course and had a total of something like four edits in 2013, and now a few in response to this for 2014. You are clearly not an involved professor.

It would be a great assistance to those of us who have to clean up the damage your students leave if you would a) register a course page, to b) work with the paid staff when your student edits need cleaning up, c) identify which other articles your students have edited, and d) engage the project yourself (that is, follow the edits your students make, make sure they are adding a course template on talk, etc). But you should be working though the Education Program so that volunteer editors aren't forced to track down your students and their work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've worked with NeuroJoe in the past, and had a much better experience than this, so I know from experience that he is here in good faith and I'm sure he is willing to listen to this feedback and take it seriously. NeuroJoe, please do work with the Education Program and create a course page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Trypto, but if he doesn't engage the website, we can't talk to him. (As you know from past discussions, I don't consider it appropriate or individual editor responsibility to have to be emailing profs to get them to review their students' work.) And he hasn't engaged for two years, even though he's running a course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Groundless accusation against WMF employee

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.

---

At Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15#Using the NSA wayback machine, Mion groundless accused a WMF employee of having an undisclosed relationship with the NSA. I removed the name from the discussion. I don't know if any action is required, but I'm bringing this here in case it is. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I dunno. Aside from being absurd and inappropriate, it's little different from the vitriol and abuse aimed at the WMF we routinely let fly from established editors under the aegis of bitching about some new feature or another. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, we should stop doing that, too. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • naturally. And as aware as I am of WP:OSE, I don't feel too impelled to bring the hammer down on someone who has made comments that we've let slide from others. At least this was so cartoonishly silly that someone could conceivably laugh about it. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That WMF employee is rumored to be named Peabody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Whew. At least nobody found my connection to the Illuminati. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:33, 6 December 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.

Harassment and personal attacks by Dan56

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

---

On September 26, 2014 I opposed Dan's FAC nom based upon the FAC criteria and another user, Spike Wilbury's, earlier oppose for similar reasons. Dan56 then proceeded to badger the living daylights out of every comment I made until I was utterly exhausted. During that time, another editor also opposed the article's promotion.

Soon afterwards, Dan56 began a concerted effort to discredit me by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock. September 27, September 28, again on September 28, again on September 28, September 29, September 30, October 3, October 7, October 9, October 15, October 20, again on October 20, November 1, November 4, November 12, November 13, November 27, and again on December 2, and December 4.

I have repeatedly asked him to refrain from making baseless accusations: October 3, again on October 3, ditto, October 8, December 2 and again on December 2. All I am asking for is that Dan56 either, a) file an SPI report, or b) stop making baseless accusations. These continued false accusations constitute harassment designed to discredit and discourage me from editing Wikipedia, and they are personal attacks. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: If you think Rationalobserver is a sock of Jazzerino, you're the one who needs to come up with evidence and file a report. If you're not going to, stop posting accusations on random admins' talk pages. Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. I mean, I'm not above calling out a duck when I see one, but I don't harp on it for weeks without filing a case at SPI. If this keeps up, we're going to be back here soon with a request for an interaction ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ivanvector and NinjaRobotPirate, Dan56 has once again accused me of impropriety and suggested to Nikkimaria that I am a sock. Will an admin please ask him to stop disparaging me in this way across multiple pages? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinging Kww and Nikkimaria as they have been named in this. The edits above show that Dan56 is clearly hounding Rationalobserver, repeatedly assuming bad faith and repeating accusations of grave misconduct while taking care to avoid the proper venues for his allegations in which he would be required to provide evidence. It seems this is entirely in response to a FAC review which did not pass, which Dan seems to think will be resolved by attacking RO's character rather than address the issues which were brought up by several editors. As Dan seems to show no intent to stop this behaviour, I think it's time for him to drop this particular stick, and thus I propose that he be topic banned from FAC and interaction banned from interacting with Rationalobserver or commenting on her conduct anywhere on the encyclopedia. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm about 70% convinced that Dan56 is right, and that uncertainty on my part has frustrated Dan56 to no end. Normally, he reports a Jazzerino sock and I just block. In this case, Rationalobserver is probably a Jazzerino sock. I just haven't been able to bring myself to say that he is definitely a Jazzerino sock. Perhaps the thing to do is just tag this conversation with {{checkuser needed}} and see if we can get this resolved.—Kww(talk) 20:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please list your evidence at the relevant SPI if you would like to request checkuser. All I see here is accusations without the necessary evidence and diffs. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo, I'm not adverse to being checked, as I have nothing to hide, but the reason I filed this report was to put some closure to 6 weeks of continuous hounding. All I ask that an admin formally request that Dan56 either stop making accusations or file an SPI, as the way this sits now I don't see him stopping anytime soon, and he has already made me consider quitting. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, and I believe a number of editors responding here have explained to Dan56 that he needs to either file a report or stop making the accusations. My response above was just a reminder that an SPI needs to be opened to present the evidence as opposed to flagging a Checkuser via a template as was done by Kww in this thread.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree, but Dan56 has not even acknowledged this thread, so it's not at all clear that he has gotten the message. I.e., I'm not sure that this qualifies as an official admin warning. Does it? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure that excuses Dan56's behaviour - he could have just gone to SPI and let someone uninvolved have a look, instead of repeating accusations all over the place. However, I defer to your wisdom and have struck my call for a ban pending checkuser results. Ivanvector (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Normally, he reports a Jazzerino sock and I just block.

Huh? Are you saying that you block most everyone Dan56 accuses of being a sock without requiring Dan56 to file an SPI report? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You can do this per WP:DUCK, though you really need to be very certain of it. Certainly doesn't apply to your case. Please, someone do the whole SPI/Checkuser thing so we can move on from this. It's not right to complain about it across the project like this. Figure it out or drop it already. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I think it would be a good idea to formally restrict Dan56 from commenting on the likelihood of contributors misusing multiple accounts, unless he is doing so as an SPI report. He has done so again here in an entirely separate discussion. I think that is technically a topic ban. While he may have a point, if he is not intending to file a report then repeatedly accusing users of sockpuppetry is just plain uncivil and disruptive. Ivanvector (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind being investigated, but Dan56 has been harassing me about this for more than 6 weeks now, so can this happen today please, so I can move on? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I presented possible evidence over the past few months at @Kww:'s talk page--User_talk:Kww#Possible_return_of_Jazzerino.2C_not_sure_though --> User_talk:Kww#RationalObserver Dan56 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Sergecross73, and Ponyo: Today, Dan56 continued to accuse me at every venue possible except SPI. Will someone please address this issue? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's nothing in what you linked except me updating a link at someone's talk page O.o Dan56 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that you've been asked by several admins to take your "evidence" to SPI, and your continued insistence on accusing me at admin talk pages has not abated. You are harassing me, and you should stop now! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Dan56, please calmly (and I cannot emphasis "calmly" enough) produce a listing of the parallels in an SPI report. I will comment on which of your parallels I think are strong enough to potentially justify a checkuser. Hopefully, we can get past this impasse. I don't find your evidence strong enough to block without a checkuser, but that's different from saying that your evidence isn't strong enough to warrant a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 6 December 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.

Gutter69

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

---

Please see contribs for subtle vandalism, and editing other editors' talk posts, followed by this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Vau-block applied. It is my sworn, bureaucratic duty to tell you that you should, ahem, you know, report this to AIV, and in this case you could have reported to UAA as well (I'm surprised the bot didn't catch this--it reports everything else). Really, SandyGeorgia! Quit hogging the board! But this is much faster, of course. Thanks, and many happy 3s and 4s, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

[ec] Blocked by Drmies. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. I'm not up on UAA, and it wasn't clear at first if it was a case for AIV, or just ... something neurological. Thanks anyway! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

UAA is very boring, unfortunately, and not good for my RSI. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 5 December 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 moves

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.

---

Taimurijaz97 has been involved in mass moves to unconventional, bad titles. He has been warned several times but he did not pay heed. The user has created a menace for other editors, who are busy chasing him to revert his edits. He was given final warnings but he did violate the policy.1 2.  SAMI  ^talk 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Holy moly. User now blocked indefinitely (not infinitely) since they a. have a talk page full of warnings; b. move and move and move; c. refuse to engage in discussion. I made it a NOTHERE block; it could have been a "disruptive editing" block (they've been blocked for that before by an editor using the pseudonym "JamesBWatson"). They should not be unblocked until they start to talk. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• I fixed some of this, but the moves/redirects would benefit from further checking by other editors. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, Holy *#$% indeed! Most (14!) of those warnings/messages were from me. 'TJ97' also had a habit of removing maintenance templates and the References hdg/template from 'their' pages that I had added them to, without correcting the problem/s of course! I also spent a great deal of time 'chasing' them fixing/reverting their edits. I am, of course, mortified that they have been blocked! They also copied the content of the Lahore Garrison University page and pasted it into at least 9 other 'new' pages, changed the name, but not much little else. Hence many details were the same for those pages! I suspect TJ97 may have made earlier edits to that page as an IP here.

Shame I didn't get here earlier to comment, but I've been busy chasing another editor with a "failure to communicate" anyway! (Only 13 talkpage messages, but they have actually, finally, replied on my talkpage!) --220 of ^Borg 01:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to know that the phrase came up during today's SEC Championship game, Luke. Roll tide, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 7 December 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.

Racism and bad 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.

---

Hi, I'm sysop from Spanish Wikipedia. I have a problem with ELreydeEspana because he commited a racist statement in his userpage. He was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia for insulting me and insulted the panamanians with racist words. Please take measures and suppress this defamation. --Taichi (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No racist words here. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen: left a final warning on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Followed up by an extra warning by Drmies and apologies from ELreydeEspana. Going to close. Blackmane (talk) 04:36, 7 December 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.

Brie & Nikki Bella

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 recently moved this article from its original (and proper) title, The Bella Twins. I was unable to move this back and another user has since made Brie & Nikki Bella a redirect to The Bella Twins. This does not work because Brie & Nikki Bella has the real article history. I'm not sure if I'm going through the proper channels, so I apologize if I've messed up here. Could an administrator help with this situation?LM2000 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This situation is now fixed.LM2000 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 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 pushing of original research by GLPeterson

GLPeterson (talk · contribs), probably also User:GaryPeterson, apparently the owner of the Tesla orientated websites 21st Century Books and teslaradio.com keeps adding, and reverting back in, article sections or creating entire articles that MIRROR versions of his own writing and his collection of primary source writings of Nikola Tesla. He seems to edit from the POV that Tesla's more far fetched ideas of wireless power transmission should be stated as valid or can be proven to be valid (example). As he states at "TESLA'S WIRELESS WORK" Gary Peterson, 2004 he wants to show "that the energy from a Tesla coil transmitter energy source can be received by a Tesla receiving transformer" and seems to heavily quote himself as a source (you can see his wording "The body of the earth is an electrical conductor" [22] from his self published "TESLA'S WIRELESS WORK" Gary Peterson, 2004. He has been copying/pasting his material into Wikipedia for some timediff and keeps creating articles and shunting this mixture of his own primary sourced writings and Tesla quotes around Wikipedia, trying to find a home for it, re: at Wireless energy transfer, Wireless energy transmission, World Wireless System, Wireless power, under a redirect pagediff (until another editor deleted itdiff), at Wardenclyffe Towerdiff - moved it off to talk by me as original researchdiff - respawned by GLPeterson at World Wireless Systemdiff

In over a decade of editing GLPeterson has hardly ever responded directly to other editors inquirers about his edits. I noticed one editor try to quiz GLPeterson on exactly what his goals were, got little in the way of feedbackdiff or simply bizarre responsesdiff. The editor ended up moving the material off to a GLPeterson project pagediff. Responses to other editors lately on his talk page have consisted of posting back Neil Armstrong quotesdiffdiff. When pushed at Wireless power he simply re-posted his "findings" in talkdiff or tried to (prove how his analysis of primary sources are valid?)diff. Attempts by several editors to cleanup Wireless power have been wholesale reverted by GLPeterson, without comment or characterized as "DAMAGE CONTROL"diffdiffdiffdiffdiff "DAMAGE CONTROL" (with some odd concept of "vetting")diffdiff. The editor is now continually removing cleanup tags at World Wireless System with no comment[23][24][25][26][27][28].

I see GLPeterson seems to be aware of the wiki sister projects where public domain primary sources and original research can be posted but seems to want to PUSH things on Wikipedia. I don't know if it is a lack the social skills or competence (the editor has been on Wikipedia a long time) or simply WP:GAMING. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, although I have only had personal experience with GLPeterson on the World Wireless System and Wireless power article. The Electrical conduction section of the latter article, which he wrote, seems to be a WP:SYNTH of 110 year old ideas of Nikola Tesla with his own interpretations thrown in. Although it is sourced, virtually all are WP:PRIMARY Tesla works, not modern engineering WP:RSs. The few modern citations Wei, Liu, Mahomed, Leyh do not support the text for which they are cited. The consensus of modern reliable sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 seems to be that Tesla's ideas were wrong. When I tried to rewrite it, he repeatedly reverted [29], [30], [31] several times saying REPAIRED DAMAGE BY Chetvorno". Although invited, he didn't participate in the discussion on the Talk page except in one instance to repeat the irrelevant quotes he had already added. When I tried to discuss it with him on his personal page, he declined. World Wireless System, virtually the entire article written by him, has similar problems. When I put tags on this article he repeatedly reverted them [32], [33] again without answering complaints on the Talk page.

Although he is polite, does not edit war, and knows how to stay below the radar, he seems to be a WP:Single-purpose account whose agenda is to tenaciously push his own WP:FRINGE views about Nikola Tesla's wireless power transmission on a number of articles. I don't know whether his motive is to promote his own Tesla website or not, but his large use of WP:OWNSITE citations would appear to be a WP:COI. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I'm not an administrator, I've urged him to make a statement here to address the concerns. I've also left him a warning that continued disruption will be met with blocks. Blackmane (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of the Tesla material to Wireless power for what appears to be the third time. Roches (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvasser canvassing 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.

---

Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been involved involved in canvasing previously, canvased Bromley86, an editor sympathetic to her POV asking him to participate in a discussion. She asked for no one else's impute and she told him which section of the talk page she wanted him to comment on. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Her invitation is perfectly appropriate and acceptable. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to participate in a discussion, and in fact, it is encouraged. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Canvassing before continuing down this path. Recommend that this report be closed... Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Padresfan94 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no indication of any "votestacking". There is, however, some indication, expressed by myself and others, that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

*shrug* Bromley has disagreed with me on many or most issues on the talkpage, and I think this trumped-up complaint by Padresfan, who is a single-purpose account existing to stalk me and edit-war, says more about Padresfan than it does about me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm seeing from his edits to the article. Padresfan94 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tell us about your conspiracy theory, then. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the link Viriditas posted and I am thinking the observations of Black Kite justify watching Padresfan94 closely. Chillum 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think both Padresfan94 and Roscelese need to be WP:TROUTed. Roscelese, that is fairly close to WP:Votestacking, why choose that editor in particular to notify? That said we can't be confident that it was based on his known opinion on this issue (compared to if Roscelese had notified a lot of editors all on the same side of an issue). And Padresfan94, after reading that thread from Black Kite, you really seem to have something going on between you and Roscelese, I really suggest you stop it. Overall though nothing actionable. --Obsidi (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Obsidi, I asked Bromley for feedback because, by discussing other issues on the talkpage, he was demonstrating a present interest in the article. Had I really wanted someone to support a position, there are dozens of users I could have called on, rather than someone who had disagreed with me on almost everything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • • But he doesn't disagree with you on almost everything. There were dozens of people who edited that page. You contacted one, and one who was sympathetic. Padresfan94 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Are they the only editor who demonstrated an interest in the article? (for instance I have seen people sometimes, rarely, notify everyone that had edited the article recently. Then you have a fairly equal way of showing that you are not trying to select any individual based on their opinion.) --Obsidi (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks by User:Viriditas

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.

---

viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) To the best of my knowledge I have never had any interaction with this user. Unprovoked, he left the following on my talk page: "Is there something in the drinking water in Pennsylvania (besides methane and fracking chemicals)? It's a tossup between your state, Florida and Ohio. Are y'all competing to see who can be the most outrageous, backwards, and 17th century in their approach to civilization? Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)" Padresfan94 (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. However, there is something in your drinking water.[34] I have no idea if this is causing you to edit like this or not. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please stop attacking me? Padresfan94 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've stopped. Is there anything else I can do for you? Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I hope you understand how completely unacceptable your comment was. When a dispute becomes heated, I recommend that you step away from your computer before saying something you may regret. —Dark 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, it was a joke. And I'm not involved in any dispute. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could remove the comment? It would be a nice gesture of good faith. Not everyone has the same sense of humor. Chillum 04:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed by special request.[35] Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas May I gently suggest you fine tune your sense of humor. I think most people would miss the intended amusement in such a post suddenly popping up on their talk page. That said,I see no reason to press this beyond removal of the offending comment with an apology. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been spending far too much time in RL, where most people are actually happy and have a sense of humor. I tend to forget that this place is known for lacking that particular capacity and tends to be very negative, paranoid, and politically naive and immature. The average Wikipedia editor reminds me of Henry Starling, a bipolar megalomaniac.[36] Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Are y'all competing to see who can be the most outrageous, backwards, and 17th century in their approach to civilization?" Is not a joke Padresfan94 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you would call it "libtard humor". Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Viriditas, as long as you include yourself in your definition of the average Wikipedia editor I'm sure that after 10 year presence here you will have appreciated that humour is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia. You are excused the temporary loss of memory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 7 December 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:187.5.175.206, sockpuppet of User:Gringoladomenega

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

---

Hi,

I recently noticed that this IP is the same as Gringoladomenega, who was blocked indefinitely for abusing editing privileges. Their edits are the same, and both add little (or mainly nothing) to the modfied articles.

Thanks, MYS77 ^✉ 22:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 Clerical note: MYS77, please remember to notify all users you report to ANI by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk pages. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:21, 6 December 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:Pbergeot

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 continues to add a non-free image to Draft:Goverlan Systems Management in violation of WP:NFCC#9 despite warnings. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The image is the Goverlan logo and goes with the article Goverlan Systems Management. From reading the non-free image criteria I could not find a reason that this logo should be deleted. I updated the file to point to the correct article, so I don't understand why you keep deleting it. --User:Pbergeot — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

As it is not used in any article, it must be deleted. As Draft:Goverlan Systems Management is not an article, the page mustn't contain any non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok. I understand. Thank you for clarifying that. --User:Pbergeot (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (EST)

• Stefan2, if you had said that, in human language, on the editor's talk page before you slapped all those preformatted warnings there, all this could have been avoided. you do a lot of good things here, but REALLY, do you have to bite this badly? Fewer templates, more written words please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Concurring very much with Drmies (due to my own experience). I'm closing this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 7 December 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.

Zeitgeist followers vandalizing articles

JamesB17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

JamesB17 has previously been blocked for edit warring at The Zeitgeist Movement, and has previously shown more sympathy toward TZM, if not promotional for TZM. SweetGirlLove likewise.

Both accounts have few edits outside of the topic, and are currently vandalizing Zeitgeist (film series). Indefinite blocks seem fair. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist has blocked JamesB17. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've left an edit warring notice on SweetGirlLove's talk page. If the disruption continues, a block will follow.  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think 'Sweet girl love' is a sock or meat puppet for a determined group that assaults the Zeitgeist related material regularly. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We assume good faith as far as possible, but letting User:SweetGirlLove off with a 3RR warning after assisting User:JamesB17 to revert war this edit into the Zeitgeist (film series) article, apart from other long-time disruption, seems impossible to me. I've indeffed them as a disruptive sock/meatpuppet, even though they haven't edited after Phil's warning. Hope you don't mind, Phil. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC).

Not that I can confirm it, but different computers on a shared IP address seems possible, doesn't it? Wouldn't JamesB17's block prevent SweetGirlLove from editing in that case? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No problem, Bishonen. The sock puppet thing looks pretty definite. Good block.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert pedley/ 3 times disruptive editing

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

---

this is the third time this person disrupts my editing below is the first

2014 (UTC) robertpedley/disruptive editing[edit]

apologies were made, the rest is a matter for the articles talk. No admin intervention needed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

this individual has disrupted my editing here[151] and also here[152] and has also done personal attacks by stating "garbage" to an edit stating -"Treatment: Removed - this is unverierified, anecdotal, and NOT currenly proposed for clinical trial in West Africa. Oxxie, please stick to WP guidelines, you know this kind of stuff is garbage"(btw it was referenced)the individual apparently also made fun of my name by placing "oxxie"[153] I am asking for a warning on this person . thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Agree the word "garbage" was unjustified, and prepared to apologize. Regretted using the word the instant I had pressed the "save" button. However I stand by the other comments - the edit in question was unverified, based on anecdotal evidence, and not relevant to the page in question. I subsequently posted as follows on Ozzie10aaaa's talk page - ##Hi Ozzie - I researched this.

1. 1. a) it's an early stage product which may never come into general use ( http://www.aethlonmedical.com/products/hemopurifier/index.htm )
   2. b) it must be attached to a kidney dialysis machine - not many of those in W Africa !! ( http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/14/aethlon-hemopurifier-ebola/ )
   3. c) the patient was receiving multiple therapies and his viral load was already in decline ( http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/14/aethlon-hemopurifier-ebola/ )
   4. Cheers, Bob. Robertpedley (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

the second is [1] reviewing this diff though you are correct that his stance is not logical. The material in question was the USA answer and precautions to the Epidemic in west Africa. So it is related and belongs in the article. But that is only my opinion. I think they are suggesting you should put it Ebola virus cases in the United States. This isn't unreasonable. You really just to get with them and talk. Take it to the talk page. If that don't work open an RFC or take it to the appropriate noticeboard. There are plenty of ways to get a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

and now [37] I am asking for a warning/block on this individual for disruptive editing thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see what the problem is - the edits affect a number of areas in the article, material probably added by a number of editors, not just Ozzie10aaaa. The reason for every edit is given clearly in the edit summary - generally today, I've been clearing up duplicated or inaccurate material. Some material which is irrelevant for the page in question has been removed with a suggestion to put it on a more relevant page. I've opened a section in the talk page to discuss my edits, in case anyone thinks they have not improved the readability and relevance of the article.Robertpedley (talk) 18:03, 7 December 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.

Hahc21

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 looking at the current ArbCom candidates, I noticed User:Hahc21, admin since March 2014.

Looking through his contributions, I noted that what we have here is an admin who created (in those days when he still was a content creator) a GA which was a massive copyright violation, even adding more copyvio paragraphs to it after these concerns had been raised at the peer review of it; who fully move-protected an article for "move-warring" when in reality he had been the only one ever to move it, and who made up a completely false reason when asked about it; who deleted an older article to move a newer article on the same subject over it, and sees no reason to restore the history of that page even when asked to do so; and who speedy deleted an article on a song by notable artists, with more than 100 reversions at the time, claiming that it was done under WP:NSONGS, which is not a speedy deletion criterion and specifically says to redirect instead. When confronted with all this, he claims to feel bad about the copyvio, and defends all his other actions to the end. I have linked to the evidence below.

I noticed a GA, San Antonio de la Eminencia castle, which I subsequently deleted as a copyright violation (translation of copyrighted texts). It turned out that Hahc21 was aware of these problems at the time but he gave a variety of reasons why he hadn't done anything about it[38][39][40][41], not all of them believable. No explanation was given on why he added a further copyvio section after the first concerns had been raised.

I then checked his admin actions, and encountered an at first sight recent misuse of protection. I asked him about this[42], but got no reply. So I went to his user talk page and repeated the question[43]. His reply, while plausible on the face of it, turned out to be completely incorrect[44]. He then undid the protection, but when asked for an explanation claimed "I don't think it was a mistake to do the protection, but I don't really care enough to try and defend it." and some other fluff.

This lead me to further look at some other admin actions he did, which I briefly described in this post. When asked to defend a speedy deletion of an article on a song by two notable artists, he replied "A simple answer: WP:NSONGS. Take a look at it." (with edit summary "basic policy knowledge"). Seeing how this answer was completely wrong and showed a disturbing pattern of misuse of admin tools and either lack of knowledge or lack of care about our policies, I warned him that I would start this section, giving him a final chance to go back and change his answer[45]. His final reply was "Sure, go ahead."

If some people can take a look and convince him to brush up on policies and actually follow them, it would be a nice improvement. Fram (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm looking at his AfD closes and accompanying deletes. Closing a string of AFD nominations by the same editor, with either no outside participation (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moxie Raia,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Lee) or where the only outside participation is contradicting the nomination argument (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Perry (singer)) seems rather dubious as well. A subject like Moxie Raia seems worthy of a real debate[46], not summary deletion. The same goes for Spencer Lee([47]). Fram (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I spot-checked some of the user's past and recent contributions and found a number of additional edits where it appears he has contributed non-free text, or translations of it, to articles. I've opened a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Hahc12. As I'm a CCI clerk I could self-endorse this but given this is a high-profile case it would be better if another clerk or administrator could review the request. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the additional edits that might contain copyvios. They might be located here: Santa María de la Cabeza castle, Santa Rosa de la Eminencia castle and Solano castle. I'd appreciate if somebody could go and check if there are any copyvios and help me fix them. I know I should have done this ages ago but I completely forgot about it after I stopped working on these articles. → Call me Hahc21 14:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have more serious issues with competence. After reading some of those AFDs, I have to ask if you have ever read Wikipedia:BEFORE. Don't you think that those listed AFDs should be reopened? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to remind you that Wikipedia:BEFORE applies to the filer of the AFD, not to the closer. That said, I closed these AFDs boldly, and I will happily apologize if it was a mistake. I already stopped doing such bold closes, and I will undelete and relist them if that's what's desired. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about AFD closure, then you must know that you could have voted instead of deleting as there was no other vote. You haven't answered, so I have to re-ask: Do you think that those AFDs should be relisted? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not "if that's what's desired", I asked for your own opinion in this matter. Bladesmulti (talk)

I was about to say the same thing, Blades -- the closer should only go on what's presented in the AfD. If she does her own research, that's risking a super!vote.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the admin must go with the consensus but in these AFDs there was no vote except the nomination. In these types of AFDs, it is better to vote rather than delete. I didn't clarified but I was also talking about the speedy deletions that have been mentioned by the OP. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

if there is no vote, relist it. If it has been relisted twice and still no votes, do what you think is right. --Obsidi (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the discussion about the AFDs is a distraction. There are plenty of admins who consider uncontested AFDs akin to uncontested PRODS which can be deleted after 7 days (and its been the subject of considerable discussion). Yes, it might be preferable to opine there or to re-list but my understanding (with the caveat that I may well be technically wrong if one has since been introduced) is that there is no specific requirement in that regard. Beyond that, the appropriate place to discuss AFD closures is DRV, but I note that despite concerns about process, few here seem to actually advocate for an alternate outcome. I would think each would be considered well within discretion, though ill-advised. None of the advice above is bad advice, it's just not particularly relevant to the broader concerns expressed by the OP. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Stalwart here. The AfDs are just another indication of the problems with the editor (and remember that he was banned from closing AfDs for three months at a time when he wasn't an administrator yet). The main problems are copyvio, some admin actions (protection for bogus reason, speedy deletion without a speedy argument), and the lack of WP:ADMINACCT afterwards (making up reasons for the protection, ignoring the evidence against it; not caring about preserving article history and attribution; and not knowing or caring about the difference between speedy policy and something like NSONGS). How hard can it be to reread WP:NSONGS and realise that it is not ever an acceptable reason to speedy delete a song article, instead of claiming that it is "basic policy knowledge" that an article on a song by notable artists can be speedied under that guideline... Fram (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

So how does someone known to violate copyright manage to get an admin position? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

With a bit of (bad) luck, you can soon change that question to "to get an ArbCom position"... The deleted copyvio article was even cited (by the nominator) as evidence of his best work in the 2nd RfA he tried. Hahc21 didn't feel the need to point out that that article (and a few similar ones apparently) might not be the best example to use. Fram (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it true, as he claims, that he only made this mistake early on, and that he doesn't violate copyrights anymore? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not "known to violate copyright." It happened once, several users weighted in to help, and it never happened again. had I been "known" for copyvio, I wouldn't have passed my RfA. Now, with regards to ADMINACCT: I explained my actions, and that's what's required. If Fram finds them to be insufficient or wrong, thats his assessment of the situation; it doesn't mean that I am not being held accountable. What it means is that he is not satisfied with my response. I am not required to do whatever is needed to satisfy him. I complied with ADMINACCT by answering his questions. → Call me Hahc21 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

ADMINACCT doesn't allow you to fabricate explanations out of thin air, or to completely misrepresent policies and guidelines (with the gall to call it "basic policy knowledge"). If, despite all this, you still feel that you have explained your actions adequately, then I seriously have to wonder whether you are fit to be an admin. As for the copyvio, note how User:Psychonaut listed multiple other articles where he feared copyvio's by you might have happened, apart from the multiple articles you listed here. But you are right, had it been known at the time of the RfA that you violated copyright, you wouldn't have passed it. Sadly, it wasn't known at the time, but it is now. Fram (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the problematic edits I identified in my spot checks span a period from January 2013 to April 2014, and cover several different articles. Unless I'm mistaken in my assessment, I don't think it's correct to say that the problem happened only once, nor that you never repeated the problematic behaviour after being notified about it (which was back at the beginning of this period, in January 2013). —Psychonaut (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: I re-cheked the CCI request, and I see the edits you highlighted there. Yes, I used to extract, from the sources, the information I was going to work with to make the job of writing much easier and organized. I then removed all the html text before moving the article to mainspace. I was not an admin back then so I was unable to delete the revisions that contained the hidden HTMl text, but I will do so now if necessary. I didn't consider it to be a copyright violation back then, given that i) it was hidden, ii) was not in mainspace, and iii) was used temporarily and was never part of the visible text. If it's considered a copyright violation, I'll make sure it won't happen again. → Call me Hahc21 13:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hahc21, can you for once try to check the facts before you post an answer? this is one of the highlighted edits. It was made on 19 March 2014, six days after you became an admin[48] and started deleting articles[49]. So your "I was not an admin back then" statement is obviously incorrect. You then give three reasons why it wasn't a copyvio anyway, including "1: it wasn't visible" and "3: [...] was never part of the visible text". However, the same example given by Psychonaut was visible from the 19th[50] until the 25th[51], or 6 days. How hard can it be to give a correct answer about your own actions? How are you going to work as an arb if you aren't able to check even the simplest things like this history, and if people can't trust any statement you make? Fram (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are so biased towards whatever purpose you are (unsuccessfully) trying to accomplish that you can't even take the time to ask me what exactly was I addressing. Not that it matters to you, given all your comments here. I am happy that the ArbCom elections will be over in 3 days, and all the harassment with it. And now the facts: this is not a copyvio. → Call me Hahc21 14:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec, will check your reply now)Me: "you are wrong, because of evidence #1, evidence #2, ...". You" "no, you are wrong". Note the difference? It is not "harassment" to look at the edits and admin actions of an ArbCom candidate, note some serious problems with them, ask questions about them, and then note that the answers are completely insufficient and unreliable, display a shocking lack of knowledge of our policies, and an equally shocking indifference to this. But feel free to show me where I am wrong and tell us what you were addressing. It will be much more effective and convincing than another "poor prosecuted me" post. Fram (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, "the facts". Changing your answer and ignoring the holes in your previous one is not "the facts"... So, what edits were you referring to when you said they were made before you became an admin and were invisible all the time? Fram (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you came to my talk page with these concerns in an appropriate way, it would have been different. But when I had you on the questions page, then questions talk page, then my talk page and now ANI, I do believe that your behaviour is concerning. Highligting the mistakes of an administrator is always a good thing. Providing evidence so that the administrator can fix their behaviour is good. But following said admin around Wikipedia is not good. Putting random diffs to "prove" that your are correct without actually suggesting ways to fix said behaviour is not good. Trying to make a big deal about issues that are not a problem anymore is not good. Did I make copyvios, yes; do I aknowledge it? yes; did I continue? No. You seem to fail to understand that. What do you hope to accomplish? A desysop? I passed my RfA because the community believed I was mature enough to identify my mistakes and fix them, not because they weren't aware of them. I already know that you don't want me to become an arbitrator. The way to express such feelings is to write a guide and vote against me using the SecurePoll interface. Going around the website splashing your thoughts the way you did on my questions page is very inappropriate and problematic. I'm not the first one you go after, but it won't work with me. → Call me Hahc21 15:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) If your asnwers had been slightly believable, it would have stayed at your talk page. "Following said admin around Wikipedia"? Where did I follow you around Wikipedia? I deleted one of your articles as a copyvio, I raised my concerns about this, and I did not undo one other edit you made, I did not reply to any discussion you participated in (which I hadn't started first). I checked your edits, yes, it's a bit hard to see whether an error is occasional or part of a larger pattern without doing that. I raised these further issues at the questions page, got no answer, went to your talk page, got an insufficient answer (well, a heap of nonsense couples with a total lack of knowledge and insight on your side), and found this sufficiently problematic to bring it here. This is standard procedure, not some evil harassment.

"Putting random diffs to "prove" that you are correct"? Care to explain which of my diffs were random and not relevant to the discussion? Suggesting ways to fix your behaviour? Yes, write the truth and check your facts. Don't make up incorrect excuses ("I wasn't an admin at the time"! "It was never visible"!), don't invent policy rules even after you have been challenged on them ("NSONGS allows me to speedy delete Physical (Enrique Iglesias song)", even though NSONGS doesn't make this claim but suggests redirecting, and A7 specifically excludes creative works), and don't be surprised if someone people think you are unfit to be an arbitrator or an admin if you can't follow these first two advices. Yes, you passed your RFA. That doesn't give you some form of immunity. Fram (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to fix the copyvios myself si if somebody weighs in, I would be grateful. is Hahc21's most recent comment on his talk page, and I believe here before he gets into a fight with Fram about ArbCom voting. I'm really concerned about the user's understanding of copyright policy, specifically their admission and demonstration in several places that they don't actually understand any of the copyright policy. There's comments like If it's considered a copyright violation, I'll make sure it won't happen again. which appear to suggest that Hahc is going to be reliant on other users to determine what is and isn't a copyright violation. We can't have administrators going around with such ignorance of one of our most important policies.

I didn't consider it to be a copyright violation back then, given that i) it was hidden, ii) was not in mainspace, and iii) was used temporarily and was never part of the visible text. Thinking that copyright violations can only exist in mainspace and only in the most recent revision of an article are frightening admissions and enormously concerning. I was taught and have always worked on the basis that any revision which can be permanently linked to by a normal user should be free from copyright violations.

I think, if I'm being honest, I'd be expecting a resignation here. The copyright violations are concerning, the underlying reasons for them are enough reason to suggest Hahc21 shouldn't be an administrator charged with dealing with copyright violations, and the extremely hostile responses to Fram really raise my concern. I'd expect, in the absence of a resignation, someone familiar with copyright policy and mentoring to pair up with Hahc and get them up to speed on policy as quickly as possible, and we'll just have to live with an admin who might never get copyright, but I'd prefer Hahc to resign, get up to speed and be re-assessed by the community. Nick (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing here, Hahc21 is unfit to be an admin, much less an arbcom member. In fact, his casual attitude toward copyright suggests he should be banished from Wikipedia altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've just spent about 2 hours going over Hahc21's Wiki career and frankly it has left me greatly disturbed. Although I have voted on almost every RfA over the past 5 years, the first two closed so quick I didn't have a chance, and the successful one took place when I was on a Wikibreak - if one can really call it successful - IMO if an consensus had been drawn on the strength of the arguments alone instead of the usual vote count percentage, the result may have been different but we leave our closing Bureacrats no options. As one user who is highly critical of our RfA system I feel that this is one occasion where an RfA failed to do its job. I'm afraid I tend to agree with commenters who perceive hat collecting and I see a determined climb up a greasy pole, especially in the light of a current Arbcom candidature. Born of my research and the issues brought up here by Fram including, and most worrying, the 'self' protection mentioned below, I think we are already past 'taking a look and convincing him to brush up on policies and actually follow them' , I regret to admit that I consider this a case for escalation and where contrary to Wikipedia general practice, the user's pattern of participation on Wikipedia, rather than some isolated incident, should be take into consideration with a view to applying some kind of sanctions that would prevent the use of admin tools and judgement. He could of course opt to do the honourable thing, as Nick suggests, and fall on his sword. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Kudpung, I don't want to pile on wrt this particular RFA (I was also absent and did not weigh in), but this RFA business is by no means new or unique. Over and over and over again (and even with Featured content standards declining to a point of being hardly distinguishable from GA), RFA candidates put up their "Featured" content as samples, and they pass without anyone scrutinizing that same content. Many times when I have scrutinized poor content that passed GA, DYK, FA whatever, I've been skewered for assaulting the poor children (which I've always had to do when encountering an RFA that already has multiple pile-on supports), so weighing in on RFAs no longer interests me much. What RFA "voters" really need to begin to look at are the new "standards" at FAC, but then they've rarely looked at the standards at DYK or GAN or anywhere else when RFA candidates offer their "content contributor" records , so ... just some context for you and Baseball Bugs on the rhetorical, "how did this happen at RFA?" It happens All The Time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I ran for admin once, in 2009. If standards have dropped this low, maybe I should try again. I would start with an advantage, never having been accused of copyright violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I agree with you, I do, I do. Contrary to what some believe, rather than wanting all candidates to pass, I always oppose if I have to, and I am still hoping that one day the drive-by and peanut gallery 'support' voters will learn to do some research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography of encyclopedias and some related articles on both encyclopedias and reference works in general are being developed to make it easier to do just that. They won't help as much with those areas which experience a lot of "breaking developments," but they can be useful in other areas. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully create-protecting a page while you are writing a draft article?

Could you please explain why you create-protected Ancient Trader on 28 March 2014, so that only sysops (i.e., you) could create it? You were working on a draft at the time, and the only other activity was from 2010, nearly three years earlier, so it doesn't look as if there was any need for protection, except to make sure that no one else created it while you were making your draft (you started on the draft on 17 March, and moved it to the mainpage on April 4). Is there some other plausible explanation I am missing here? Fram (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hahc21 I'd like an explanation for that too. Otherwise it looks to me like Fram's conclusion is apt, and if so this is antithetical to how this place is supposed to work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Insures the chance for a Dyk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.34.210 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

I would like to suggest to User:Hahc21 that before further embarrassing behaviors come to light and the community sees a need to act, he voluntarily resign as an admin and step down as a candidate for ArbCom. BMK (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat by Marcesco

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

---

Editor Marcesco clearly has a COI on the artice Francesco Aquilini, however with this edit [52], the editor made a legal threat. Thanks. VViking_TalkEdits 06:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is truncated, it says "...we now have our lawyers prepared to send you all legitimate up to..."

That could finish "up to date information" which is not a threat. Not a clear cut case in my opinion though the mention of lawyers can have a chilling effect if repeated. Chillum 06:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To me, an obvious legal threat, but before indef'ing the user, the OP should check and be sure the article has it right, i.e. that whatever Marcesco is griping about is verifiable, not undue weight, and otherwise conforms to BLP policies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have given the user a link to our NLT policy and an only warning regarding the matter. If another admin interprets the truncated edit summary as a clear threat then I do not oppose them acting on that. Chillum 06:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to advise him to post those lengthy edit summaries as talk page comments instead. That way, his intent should become clearer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all, after re-reading the "lawyers prepared to send you all legitimate up to..." it does seem to be she could have been meaning to add "up to date information". Looking over a number of this editors changes, most are correct, however some of them seem to be an issue of what should and shouldn't be included in the article. I have no strong feelings on this article. I just noticed the edit summary in the recent edits area and the "lawyers" talk with the "..." at the end seemed to be a redflag. Thank you for the quick response. VViking_TalkEdits 06:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at all the comments he's made, all of them truncated, I can see where he "might" be just trying to set the record straight. To be watched, though. One of the truncated comments started to say something about defamation, and that's usually at least a yellow flag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Bugs here. I don't think it's time to pull the trigger on a NLT block. Given this editor seems concerned with BLP issues on that article, the best option is probably to ask him or her to use the talk page and let a more experienced editor address whatever problems are in the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a her, based on edit summaries. There's a clear conflict of interest, but, to her defense, she has removed some serious BLP violations ("four dead children" - uncited). This one, while likely not the intention, removed a copyvio from CBC.ca. There's a bit of whitewashing, and a bit of legitimate cleanup in these edits, so let's be nuanced in our approach. I don't see any clear legal threats in the edit summaries, "lawyers" are mentioned in the context of sending "us" documentation to back up assertions. The Interior (Talk) 16:11, 7 December 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.

Satyananda Saraswati

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.

---

Full protection might be a good idea for Satyananda Saraswati. There's an intensive eidt-war going on. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 8 December 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.

Revdel needed for possible outing.

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

---

I'm not sure who He'll in a Bucket is but I live in Colorado says so on my userpage ;) but I'm not sure that the other part is public info and I believe is an attempt to out another editor. Currently User:Lightbreather is in a witchunt trying to prove another editor is User:Sue Rangell. It appears that attempts to match her to other people or reveal her family ties is what is going on here. [[53]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

While the edit summary should probably be revdelled and LB was unwise to do so (WP:TROUT), especially while already under sanction. the WP:BAIT and gravedancing that she was responding to are mitigating to some degree. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure the problem is she has shown she is very aware of the WP:OUTING policy as shown by her own userpage, and for the record if anyone is wondering my connection is through Comcast and I get aweird ip address Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have revdel'd the edit summary as it is better safe than sorry when dealing with the release of identifying information. I will leave it to others to decide if further action/warning is needed. Chillum 17:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In case you are curious. 2601:1:C080:EEF:D188:D408:3BBD:2D14 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"weird", a word which here means IPv6 :) LFaraone 23:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• The postings on Lightbreather's talk page are helping no one, including Lightbreather. It would be beneficial all round if, for a short period, it were fully protected and Lightbreather blocked from it. DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on the matter, but I just turned down the RFPP request asking to semi-protect her page, since Lightbreather is an autocinfirmed user, and semi-protection would have no effect. If she needs to be stopped, she has to be reblocked with the talk page access withdrawn (again, I have no idea on whether this is actually needed).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter It would stop the IPs from posting to her page and baiting her tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A good point, thanks. Now indeed I see a couple of IPs posting earlier today, at least one of them clearly not constructive. Semi-protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Ymblanter made the right move. Baiting was going on. Chillum 20:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That being said, this sock puppet investigatory business needs to stop. I've seen many an admin say talk page access is for appealing blocks. She's been shown far too much leeway already.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access is not solely for appealing blocks. --NE2 21:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Two kinds of pork, this is the case for for bans but more leeway is given for blocked users. Chillum 21:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Two kinds of pork if you hear an admin say that about blocked (not banned) users, tell them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong. It's a frustratingly common misconception and it leads to a lot of really unnecessary meddling from admins and gadflies. Protonk (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to to really technical then in the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned. This actually applies in a lot of cases, though not saying it applies here. Chillum 03:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, requests to revdelete outing shouldn't be posted here, because that's just giving a big audience to info that shouldn't be here in the first place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, according to the page for revdel, it should be done via email to administrators, on their talk page (Which I consider to be bad form) or in #wikipedia-en-revdel IRC channel. Tutelary (talk) 21:56, 6 December 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.

Suspected SPAs and/or Sock Accounts

On the film article Difret, three new editors have begun contributing to it over recent days:

• Alllz12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aeterno94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mmandefro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All three users have no other edits on any other page on WP and seem to focus on the "Controversy" section, which I think is fast becoming a BLP issue too. I'd appreciate any help/thoughts on this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet master User:Pass a Method having changed his username across Wikis

Opinions are needed on the following matter: User talk:Stephen G. Brown#User:Pass a Method. A WP:Permalink for it is here. I also requested outside opinions elsewhere, a fruitless request. I'd rather this discussion continue here at WP:ANI, and I've brought it here because it calls for WP:Administrator involvement. The case concerns a WP:Sockpuppet master, User:Pass a Method, having changed his username across Wikis seemingly to make it less easy to associate his Pass a Method account with having WP:Sockpuppeted. Two WP:Administrators (Bbb23 and John Carter) who are significantly familiar with him agree that he likely is trying to evade scrutiny. Considering that Pass a Method is a very problematic editor, I believe that his English Wikipedia username should remain Pass a Method, and that it should then be indefinitely blocked as a WP:Sockpuppet. However, there is apparently a problem with changing his English Wikipedia username back to Pass a Method because it means that it will be a global move. There must be a way for a WP:Administrator to reverse the name change without affecting the other Wikis. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For purposes of clarification, I am a former administrator, but I agree that to the best of my knowledge the only reasons that this name change could have been requested, given the account has been according to Stephen G. Brown globally inactive since the name change was implemented, either for promotion of personal beliefs of some sort, which is at best dubiously acceptable by policy for an editor who has had apparently no subsequent activity, or as stated above an attempt to try to avoid scrutiny. Given that the account has apparently been globally inactive since the name change, I think that there are reasonable grounds to believe that in this particular case the name change might be reversible. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree the name change is problematic. Pretty sure local name changes (or changes back) can be requested here. But annoyingly the circumstances don't fit any of the criteria listed on the request page under "Making a request for an account that is not yours" ... -- Euryalus (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Atifabbasi8 creation of many titles duplicating other articles

Atifabbasi8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A review of this user's talk page and contribution history suggests a lack of understanding how Wikipedia works. They keep starting short articles on topics already covered elsewhere. Can they be blocked from creating articles for a time? Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not possible to block someone from creating articles, other than simply by blocking them from editing altogether. Let me look at the edit history and come back with an opinion on whether a block is needed. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, I checked Atifabbasi's existing mainspace page creations for the last three months and don't see a reason for sanctions. Unless I'm missing something, the worst thing that this user's done (aside from one copyvio, which by itself isn't reason for sanctions) is creating pages under alternate titles, and that's easily rectified by redirecting them. What's more, much of the deleted content shouldn't have been deleted. ISIL presence in Tripoli doesn't duplicate the main article (as far as I can see, it doesn't mention Tripoli at all), and List of ISIL Wilayahs was deleted under G2 (a test? This was obviously intended to be the list that it was), under A7 (this list definitely wasn't "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event"), and A11 — this is a serious violation of WP:WIAPA "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons", since this criterion could only apply if Atifabbasi is high-up in ISIL. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeking a broad block or ban, just wanted to flag the activity for a fresh set of eyes. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the link to this report after independently coming to Atifabbasi8's page to give notification on this disruptive edit. Content has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. The type field is there to mention what the group is. The group fails in definition as being a state as it lacks international any level of international recognition. It claims to be a Caliphate are extensively dealt with elsewhere in the article and as the authority or the claim is disputed, it cannot be declared in Wikipedia's voice. gregkaye ✍♪ 12:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As an issue has been already been raised here would this be a good place to leave comment on 1RR infringement and persistent edit warring on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or should this be done at the 3RR page. Please also see Atifabbasi8 for history of infringement. gregkaye ✍♪ 13:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Neer87 and Qnet

User:Neer87 is attempting to remove unflattering material from the article Qnet.--KTo288 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have left a warning on their talk page and notified them of this discussion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I put the notification on the wrong page.--KTo288 (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I suspect a COI and will put the appropriate template on their page. It certainly seems like their only interest is whitewashing; I suggest further such edits be met with a block and given that this is an SPA, that can be an indefinite NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:Doraemon25

Doraemon25 has been warned in the past about copyright violations (here, here and here) and was given a final warning here. Nevertheless, he/she continues to add copyright material to articles: this from here, this from here. There's been no talk page response to any of the various warnings. I suggest that a stronger message is now needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Thank you for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please revert edit to protected template

Pigsonthewing recently edited the protected Template:Infobox university‎. I appreciate his boldness but I object to the edit. I also appreciate him opening a discussion in Talk but it seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, particularly WP:BRD, for an editor with elevated privileges to make a controversial edit to a protected article and for us to retain that edit over the objections of other editors without the necessary editing privileges. Can an administrator please revert this edit until we can come to a consensus in Talk? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

He has already self-reverted. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod|Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view and makes unreasonable demands

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.

---

Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view and makes unreasonable demands. User:Scalhotrod is apparently on a crusade to eliminate U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html because it completly refutes his point of view. The lonesentry.com site is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents. A simple Google search reveals that it is widely used as source material in many articles, books and other publications (with approximately 80,000 hits). I then composed a list of the first 25 books that popped-up using lonesentry.com material as sources. Scalhotrod rejected the list, denounced the writers stating that "Authors want to make money too" and demanded that I produce additional evidence. I now believe that Scalhotrod is toying with me and that no evidence will satisfy him. Below is a copy of the relevant conversation on the StG 44 talk page.--RAF910 (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Material copy-pasted from a talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gewehr means "rifle" ? Oh hoh hoh, so "Maschinengewehr" is machine... rifle ??? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) A look in the dictionary tells us that "gewehr" can be translated as both "gun" and "rifle". Words can have multiple meanings. Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC) How about sturm? But apparently "sturm" can only mean "assault" in this article (another look in the dictionary) or maybe there's another explanation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Sturm = storm...as in "have fun storming the castle". In this context, the most commonly used translated synonym is "assault". Therefore, the most common english language translation for "sturmgewehr" is "assault rifle". See...the fifth definition in the verb section of the above source (another look in the dictionary). This is also well referenced within the article. As Sus scrofa said above..."Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text."--RAF910 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I can appreciate the intention of a catchy phrase, but the lead says "(abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") is a German assault rifle...". Aside from being grammatically redundant and poor writing, its a misnomer considering that how the name came to be is detailed in the body of the text. So in this context, since the term did not exist until the creation of this firearm (but I'll acknowledge that it is responsible for the terms future popularity) it is misleading without explanation which is what I attempted to do with this edit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Reliability of LoneSentry website Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html Machine Carbine Promoted," Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945. This is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents, it is widely used on wiki and in books and other publication (a simple google search will prove this). I believe that he cannot accept the fact that the German word "sturmgewehr" is commonly translated into English as as "assault rifle" and believes that it should be translated as "storm gun" instead. Also, he seems upset that the source states that Adolph Hitler coined the term (see assault rifle page). And, since the reference in question is the first time that the term "assault rifle" is used, he is attempting to discredit it.--RAF910 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC) What exactly are you basing the phrase "well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents" on? The reference pointed to text that claims to be a reprint of the Government document, but even the LoneSentry.com website states, "As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text." How is this a WP:RS? The source you are pointing to is just text, not a copy or photostat of the original. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC) With regard to "storm rifle" vs. "assault rifle", from a historical and encyclopedic standpoint, I believe that this (and only this) article should use the phrase "storm rifle" simply because this rifle is the origin of the entire category of firearms. Furthermore, I only tried to insert the phrase ONCE in the lead to emphasize the fact that this firearm was origin of the term that became popular or common much later on. I'm not trying to discredit anything, I'm trying to better explain something within the proper context. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC) I noticed that you forgot to write the first and last sentence of Lonesentry.com disclaimer...so for my fellow users it states "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website." U.S. War Department publications are by definition reliable sources. The website simply puts a standard disclaimer at the top of each article. Also, Lonesentry.com is clearly an established and reputable source of information. A simple Google search reveils that numerous books use Lonesentry.com resources as references (see sample list below...I'm afraid there are too many to list them all). MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns By Chris McNab The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide 4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold World War II By Walter A. Haze Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman --RAF910 (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC) I don't see how the first and last sentence change the fact that the website admits that its contents may not be accurate. I'm not contesting that the original source of the information is the U.S. Government, I'm challenging that LoneSentries reporting of it can't be trusted as a WP:RS by the site's own admission. It's reposted text without any proof of the original source. As for your list of books, OK, so what? Without the context of how each and everyone of these publications is citing the information, this is a baseless assertion. You seem to be accepting blindly that the LoneSentry site is 100% accurate, but not offering any verifiable evidence as to why. Authors want to make money too, why wouldn't they use sources that back up their writing. Would you mind posting links to your research and better explain your opinion? Back to the subject of "sturm" for a moment, I asked about this on the Lead talk page and also looked up the translation here. If you click the "More translation" link to show the full list, it pretty clearly shows that another use of the word "sturm" is attack or assault. So my apologies for the misinterpretation, "sturm" = "assault" in German. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Let me see if I understand this...the hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty resources as references are all a bunch of hack-writers and you expect me to prove their research. While you...who now by your own admission could not correctly translate the German word "sturmgewehr" to the English term "assault rifle" (despite 70 years and countless books and articles on the subject), alone possesses the knowledge to invalidate the research of hundreds if not thousands of writers. I don't think so...and, I will no longer entertain you.--RAF910 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC) RAF910, just show me (and everyone else who might be reading this) a link that supports any of what you are saying. If there are "hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty", then lets see it. Please try to calm down and have a rational discussion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone give a clear explanation as to why this is anything other than a content dispute, and thus not an appropriate topic for WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer if it went to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, but I agree with Andy's assessment. RAF910 is misreading the situation. I'm simply asking why a personal website that claims to post reprints of government documents, but does not reference scans or photostats of the original material and that posts a warning that its content may not be accurate, is considered reliable. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone give a clear explanation as to why this is anything other than a content dispute, and thus not an appropriate topic for WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StG_44&diff=636928610&oldid=636899868 shows that User:Scalhotrod removed a significant amount of referenced information from the Stg 44 page. And is edit warring with the following edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StG_44&diff=635791855&oldid=632697804 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StG_44&diff=next&oldid=636955686--RAF910 (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that Scalhotrod had only made 4 edits to the article in question, and has not reverted your restoration of the disputed material, I think it would be difficult to support a claim of edit-warring. [54] AndyTheGrump (talk)

It's 5 now [55], I'm trying to improve the sentence structure and wording of the first sentence in the Lead. The use of the phrase "assault rifle" 3 times in a row in the same sentence seemed a bit much. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I second the content-dispute characterization. Glrx (talk) 18:02, 8 December 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.

EChastain SPI and ad hominems

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.

---

Not much to report, no rush on this needed, but could another sysop please look at this SPI. I, and a few others, have listed some evidence that EChastain is the return of another user. Whether they have done that within policy or not is up for discussion but there is some evidence of a failed clean start, from my perspective. EChastain has taken to making some personal attacks such as that I am incivil or WP:Involved. The remarks have continued on the SPI where I am accused of having an agenda. When I pressed a reason why EChastain would think I am involved or have an agenda, and that they supply diffs, they replied that they have no idea how their allegations are true, but they made them nontheless. Despite that, they are unwilling to strike the accusations. Would appreciate if someone could ask EChastain to either substantiate the accusations against me, or to quit bothering me and focus on disputing the diffs and evidence I have presented against them.--v/r - TP 01:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they misunderstand what is being attempted. I think it would be best for the evidence to be evaluated as soon as possible as it has lasted longer then it should. I think the striking accusations part is something that User:TParis should ignore. Two things are here, 1 Tparis is right in which case it's WP:RBI or TParis is wrong and this is normal anxiety of an innocent editor. Either problem is solved with a positive or negative finding. I think a discussion would be a good thing though, I have encouraged it from the start of the conversation on this SPI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally care either way, but they keep blasting up my talk page.--v/r - TP 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It all boils down to this (for those who may be interested) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell. Multiple editors have told EChastain to just drop it but based on her edit history: [56] she has done nothing but post there recently. I do not think it is Sue but TParis is right with his returning editor comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd also say that Echastain has, like many editors, a fundamental misunderstanding as to the use of WP:INVOLVED in the wiki-context. They should definitely strike the allegations unless diffs are forthcoming, saying something along the lines of "You've got it in for me, I don't know how to prove it so you need to show me the evidence of this" is ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have just reverted a clear personal attack by EChastain on that SPI. TParis, you've kept your cool--please continue to do so. There's a slight aroma of humanity in your "thank you for clarifying" comment: an admin should not betray frustration. EChastain, I am not going to post a template on your talk page since this ping should suffice: no more personal attacks, please, since you're in blockable territory. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• As notifications are user configurable, pinging is not a reliable means of communicating a message to another editor. "Old school" (user talk page) is still best for that. NE Ent 10:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

EChastain has been accused by Wikipedia of being a liar. That's about as ad hominem as you can get. Some of the evidence presented is evidence that they are not a new user, a fact they had already stipulated on their talk page prior to the filing. [57]. That accusation was made seven days ago, and remains hanging, unresolved. So who's not "dropping the stick?" Now I understand WMFs Wikimedia:Privacy policy puts us in a very difficult position, in that two logical consequences of it are: a). We will have socks, always, and b). we have very limited resources in which to identify such. "Behavioral evidence" is essentially a fancy word for "we're forced to make our best guess." Obviously, while flawed -- does anyone really doubt we're going to have both false positives and false negatives? -- it's an unfortunate necessity as we can't allow people to vote twice in our "consensus is not voting" discussions. I also get that, as a volunteer staffed activity, SPI will sometimes backlog. So could we please, possibly treat EChastain with some empathy and compassion? NE Ent 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she is a bad editor, I just wish that she would stay away from the SPI. EChastain is clearly is not Sue so why she is wasting her time there is beyond me. I had been encouraging her to edit some articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, Knowledgekid87, but your welcome to your opinion. @NE Ent, per WP:NPA, I have substantiated the claims. ECHastain has not. It's a simple matter of enforcing policy. My comments above are that she must "either substantiate the accusations against me, or to quit bothering me". I don't believe that is an unreasonable request, do you? Does your compassion allow others to retaliate without any evidence to support their accusations?--v/r - TP 16:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well what is there to gain by socking here? Sue isn't currently blocked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• TP, I looked and while there is some evidence to support your thesis, I didn't think there was enough to justify a block under the circumstances. If EC causes future trouble, feel free to ask me to have another look. EC would be wise to avoid further conflicts. The arbitration case has closed. I think it would be smart for all who got into heated conversations about those matters would give a general amnesty to everybody else, and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, Jehochman. EChastain and I don't overlap (that I am aware of) so likelihood is that I'll never see them again.--v/r - TP 19:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• EChastain has left Wikipedia. [58] or in her words "driven off". Nothing more to see here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 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.

Winkelvi

User:Winkelvi — who follows me around Wikipedia, has cursed at me, has made repeated harassing posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop, and has made numerous snide comments to me at at BLP Noticeaboard discussion — has now written a long personal attack on me on his user page. [59]. Not mentioning my username is not a defense when numerous editors who have been involved in the discussion can identify that he's referring to me. And in any case, what is the purpose of that screed, other than to personally attack another editor? His comment "continually and obsessively updating their edit count and editor ranking position" — basic housekeeping; why should that bother him? — shows he goes to check out contributions and keeps and eye on where and what I edit!

I've edited on Wikipedia for 9 1/2 years with a virtually impeccable record and much goodwill. I've mentored many editors and could call on a dozen fellow editors, including a couple of admins, to vouch for my good works. As can happen in 9 1/2 years, I was involved in a dispute in June in which the other user repeatedly cursed me with the f-word [60] after my very polite posts on his talk page [61], [62]. He did so again and again [63], [64], and was verbally abusive even when Wikipedia rules required my notifying him of things like 3RR warnings and ANI [65].

The whole incident left me so frustrated I remained away from Wikipedia until November. Within days of my returning Winkelvi was back on my talk page to bait me. [66] When I responded on his talk page he first bragged about how he told me "fuck off" in June, and then began cursing me again freshly: [67]. And then even after being asked to stay off my talk page, he came at me again, with more false charges [68].

Within an hour of my posting on a noticeboard, he's there [69]. Fine: Even if it's not advisable to comment on a noticeboard to an editor you've antagonized and cursed at, it's not disallowed. But then he follows me around to other editors' pages where I do not mention him [70]. And I'm not even listing all the diffs on the noticeboard where he makes uncivil comments and tells me has every right to curse me out since "Wikipedia is not censored and cursing is allowed," [71], even though that guideline refers to quotes within articles — it's not blanket permission to curse out other editors. The "chew on that awhile" comment he added to that edit was gratuitous, not to mention needlessly mean-spirited.

Is he going to be allowed to keep the personal attack on me on his user page? And is there any way to stop this cursing, uncivil editor from following me around, going to my talk page and harassing me? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just chiming in to note how Winkilevel has treated @Lithistman: I recall an exchange from October where Lihistman removed a non-constructive comment from his page [72] to have Wink slap an automated message on the talk page [73]. This was after he two users had been engaged in a contentious discussion at BLPN.
• More recently, he engaged in a pretty petty edit war on Breaking Bad (see history) and showed nothing but hostility on the article's talk page (see thread).
• Given this and evidence above, I think this may be a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. -- Calidum 20:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to your first bullet, it was an automated but personalized message, and I believe he was referring to the edit summary (trolling). As for your second bullet, you were involved in the edit war and in the discussion (I'm not going to read all of it). From this report and these two "incidents", you conclude that WV is WP:NOTHERE? That's a bit much.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever else is going on (perhaps an IBAN is indicated here?), I disagree on your NOTHERE assessment. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I do think an IBAN between Winkelvi and Tenebrae should be made official before things get further out of hand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I support a two-way interaction ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While may not be entirely NOTHERE, this is a pretty serious bullying case that looks like it has been way beyond this specific instance. Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of full-disclosure, Bbb23 is not an uninvolved editor/admin. He hid some of my and Winkelvi comments from a current discussion [74] yet allowed Winkelvi to retain his taunt that I was "getting [my] panties in a wad." [75]. There is no excuse for that kind of favoritism or for an admin to even countenance that kind of consciously vulgar, deliberately uncivil language from one editor to another. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As has unfortunately often been the case in this back-and-forth between Tenebrae and WV, Tenebrae is wrong on many points. Although there was obviously baggage between the two users before I got sucked into it, it started for me because I reverted Tenebrae over WP:DOB. After we went round and round on my talk page, I suggested he take it to BLPN. He did, and last I checked (not lately), not a single editor agreed with Tenebrae. I stayed out of the policy discussion and hatted two times when WV and Tenebrae were bickering about each other as opposed to about the policy. Admittedly, WV's language is blunt, forceful, colorful, abrasive, and, as Tenebrae rightly says, often uncivil, but Tenebrae wasn't helping. He can't seem to accept that Wikipedia is, for better or for worse, full of editors like WV, and you either ignore them or put up with it. The second hatting is the one he complained about, and I explained to him on my talk page (where he complained some more) why I left the "panties in a wad" comment unhatted, but Tenebrae was having none of it. In any event, even without knowing all the history of the two users, I could see that the best result would be an interaction ban. But apparently Tenebrae wants more. He wants everything he deems objectionable to be cleaned up or removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a very similar opinion to Winkelvi's about this slavish addition of celebrity minutiae that has absolutely no encyclopedic value. I mean seriously, what significance does say Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's child have in, well, anything? As for a personal attack, how is it exactly a personal attack? Is Winkelvi's opinion, indirectly or directly, on how you spend your time really relevant to you personally? It shouldn't be. Should you take so grievously? Only if you're a bit too sensitive to other people's opinion. I could see that, from WV's perspective, your posts were not polite so much as patronising. Whether they should be taken them as such is debatable, similar to whether you should consider their "screed" as a personal attack. There's obviously a lot of ruffled feathers now, so a two way interaction ban is the only obvious course. Blackmane (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My intention for the moment is to respond only in part as I am quite busy in real life away from Wikipedia and probably won't have time to get evidence, diffs, and the like together in short order. I don't want anyone to get the impression I am uninterested in this filing and have nothing to say in the way of a "defense" of myself and answering these accusations as well as addressing concerns of others commenting.

I have to admit, I'm pretty surprised Tenebrae brought things here. Surprised, because his accusations of harassment, following him, and uncivil behavior are all pretty hollow claims when you look at his history and participation in this "baggage" (as Bbb23 rightly called it).

Above, Tenebrae talked quite a bit about how terrific he is and how long he's been here, about how he was wronged in June, how he stayed away until November out of fear and discouragement, etc., etc. In so doing, however, he has painted a very skewed and one-sided picture that leaves out his uncivil behavior and language when communicating with me, his uncivil behavior and language when referring to me in discussions where I'm not present and completely uninvolved, repeated visits to noticeboards and administrator talk pages to complain about me and practically beg for some kind of sanction to be placed on me. He leaves out how he has followed me to articles and talk pages. He left out how -- after I had told him I wanted him to stay off my talk page six months ago -- he still posted there just recently. He has made situations about what happened between us six months ago when what happened six months ago didn't even need to be mentioned or didn't apply at all. He has manipulated the truth, he has outright lied about me, he has tried to turn other editors and administrators against me. He even accused me of making a legal threat (which I did not, and he was told by an administrator that I did not). He has been working very hard to see me punished because of what happened six months ago. He has been told to drop that stick, but he insists on continually picking it up. Only he knows why.

I do agree with Bbb23 that Tenebrae will not be happy no matter what is decided here because what he wants is beyond what is reasonable or even truly actionable.

Do I think myself blameless? No. I am certain there are things I can do better and differently. I learned from this "baggage" and from this report that I should re-evaluate some of the ways I do things in Wikipedia. I understand that from looking at what Tenebrae has presented here that I probably look like a complete jerk. But I know I'm not a complete jerk. I am a good content and copy editor and have a history of doing good here just as Tenebrae does. Further, I come nowhere near WP:NOTHERE as another editor has weirdly suggested. More importantly, I know I've not been the person/editor Tenebrae has painted me to be and I also know that I can avoid interacting with Tenebrae without a formal/official interaction ban. I don't know if he can do the same, I would hope the adult he poses himself to be (a professional biographer with education and academic credentials) would have that kind of self-restraint.

That's all I have time for right now. I will be back either within a few hours or sometime tomorrow to produce diffs and the like to support the things I stated above that are likely to be challenged. I ask for the community's patience in giving me some time to do that. My schedule in real life is quite packed right now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's a fine bunch of namecalling all around, and it's amusing (for ANI regulars) to see HiLo and LHM thrown into the mix, in an early response to this thread (shout out!). I agree that Winkelvi has a tendency to come out way too strong (and I don't say that just because they told me to fuck off too, a while ago), but NOTHERE is a silly overreaction. Maybe a two-way interaction ban is helpful; at any rate, I thank Bbb23 for their hatting on that BLPN discussion (it's still open! any takers?), and I hope that admins will more frequently nip such unhelpful conversations in the bud, not just by hatting but also by deleting.

  Anyway, Tenebrae also is colorful enough; referencing the BLPN discussion, they refer to those who want to get rid of the celeb's children's DOBs as "extremists", who "hide" information--I don't want to make too much of it, but that's a serious lack of AGF. If "getting your panties in a wad" is a blockable or bannable choice of words we're going to run out of editors real soon. In short, Winkelvi is a decent editor who, I believe, is working on their general interaction skills and I see no reason for any official, formal action. If anything, though I admit Winkelvi's tone probably doesn't invite it, I urge other editors/admins to point out to them when they're going too far--informally, with a note on their talk page. I'm sure that's all that's necessary. The AGF I extend to Winkelvi extends to Tenebrae as well, with whom I remember good interactions, but I can't help but sense a bit of frustration here. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can we at least agree that Winkelvi's latest addition to his userpage, which reads in part "there are those who view it (Wikipedia) as a repository for information on celebrities - including every bit of ridiculous and unencyclopedic fan-garbage and trivia that can be found and replicated here. There are editors who have made Wikipedia their reason for being, continually and obsessively updating their edit count and editor ranking position while racking up tens-of-thousands of edits that in reality mean nothing because...(wait for it)...someone will come along and change what you just added or deleted. I think this qualifies for the pop-culture definition for insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again while, each time, expecting a different result," is problematic as a violation of WP:POLEMIC? -- Calidum 05:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, unfortunately. I have reverted that edit. Sorry Winkelvi, but POLEMIC indeed covers this kind of material. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And I thank you for that. As for Bbb23: no, you reverted another editor at Tom Hanks, and I very politely questioned your reasoning. Bbb23 told both of us that WP:DOB prohibited something and I pointed out that, in fact — as one or two other editors noted at the BLPN discussion — it does not say what he claomed it did. So: Because I disagreed with him, he now he brings up extraneous commentary about BLP issues that have nothing whatsoever do with Winkelvi's

• repeated f-bombing me [76] [77], [78]. [79], [80] [81] [82].
• following me around Wikipedia, [83]. [84].
• coming to my talk page when I've asked him not to, [85]
• posting an attack screed on his user page, and [86]
• using what Bbb23 concedes can be "abusive" and "uncivil". Bbb23's smoke-screening deliberately obfuscates the fact that we have a verbally abusive, harassing and extremely volatile person in Winkelvi. I'm sorry and confused to see an admin feel the need to defend such a person. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Administrators should take note of the history of, shall we say "gruffness" that has been a cornerstone of Winkelvi's talkpage banter for some time. A quick examination] of exchanges he had with numerous editors on the 2014 Oso mudslide including myself were bad enough that even though I had created that article, I took it off my watchlist so I didn't end up going into F-U territory.--MONGO 16:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

• Two-way indefinite interaction ban between Winkelvi and Tenebrae. Additionally, neither user should edit a page right after the other does. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Blackmane (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Avono (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the above thread, and am skipping over all the aspersions that aren't supported by diffs. One diff is most prominent: [87] This form of discourse is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and should have resulted in a block, but it's stale by now so I will just warn Winkelvi not to repeat that sort of thing. An IBAN is cheap and easy, but it isn't supported by any evidence. I don't see diffs showing problematic edits by Tenebrae. As a result I am closing this thread now, before it comes to an unjust result. If you want to make a case to IBAN Tenebrea, please post diffs showing why such is needed. Waving your hands and saying "we all know what's going on" isn't sufficient. If it's that obvious you should have no problem providing a few exemplary diffs. For the moment, I am to advise both editors not to needle the other. Should there be further needling, come to my talk page and I will deal with it directly. If that won't make you happy, come to AN/I and take your chances on both getting sanctioned. Finally, I remind all participants in this discussion not to say bad things about any editor without providing evidence in the form of diffs or links, lest your comment be characterized as a personal attack. You may refactor your remarks to include diffs or to strike assertions that aren't supported by the evidence presented. Jehochman ^Talk 15:28, 8 December 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.

• Support two-way indefinite interaction ban between Winkelvi and Tenebrae as suggested above. While IBANs are not blocks, "preventative rather than punitive" is still a good idea; the idea is not to punish either Winkelvi or Tenebrae, but to prevent further disruption of normal, productive editing. Both Winkelvi and Tenebrae are capable of being good editors, and the fights between them are distracting them both; indeed, at this point, they're also distracting other Wikipedians. This ANI thread, and the previous one, are ample proof of that.
  Maybe a one-way IBAN would be sufficient; maybe not. A mutual IBAN is simpler, leaves less questions for later and seems to have plenty of supporters here. I'm not going to sort through all of Tenebrae's recent edits to find evidence of "problematic edits"; the idea of the mutual IBAN is not to punish him, but to end all this drama so he and others here can concentrate on improving the encyclopedia. Sideways713 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a stigma associated with any sort of ban. If you want your opinion to carry weight, please find some diffs showing that Tenebrae needs such a sanction. I have spoken with both editors already and counseled them to avoid each other, and they seem to have agreed. I am hoping to avoid the stigma of sanctioning either one, but if the community feels otherwise, I will enact a sanction if there is evidence to support the votes. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I know Tenebrae quite well and Winkelvi not really at all so I will get this out of the way: I have always found Tenebrae to be amiable and constructive, but that's not to say Winkelvi is not; I simply have had very little interaction with him. On that basis I am not a complete neutral although I have not been involved in their disputes.

I am not really convinced there is harrassment going on. There is clearly a lot of bad blood, but I not convinced either editor is stalking or baiting the other. Here are some interaction diffs which cut through to the heart of the debate: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement about how to apply several BLP policies. I can't find much evidence of harrassment. I do think there is a civility issue though. Here are some responses by Winkelvi to editors besides Tenebrae: [93], [94], [95], [96]. Those are just edit summaries where Winkelvi tells people to "f*** off". This may be explained by Winkelvi's Aspergers condition.

It seems there are two issues: one is how Tenebrae and Winkelvi go about resolving this particular BLP dispute (DR is an obvious avenue here if it hasn't been attempted yet), and the other is Winkelvi's combative nature when editors approach him on his talk page. I don't really have any good suggestions for the latter but perhaps if Winkelvi agreed to stop swearing at people then it would be a step forward. Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Large group of socks/meatpuppets adding slavery content

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 morning I can across a large number of SPA accounts adding nearly identical text to a large number of articles. Is anyone familiar with this issue? Some of the behavior suggests the user(s) are familiar with editing Wikipedia, so I am wondering if there's a known sockmaster out there where these should be added. Here are the ones found thus far today - and new socks continue to be created every few minutes and taking up the activity:

• Nounteeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Knjiga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Brocklake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Platonion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Sumonelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Sarahgeorgewa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Atorfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Avillamarink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• M6k2c5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Shabbababbajabba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Franca1962 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• MikriFilos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Yavannie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Ryan baillargeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

My main concern here is with the sock behavior and the disruption caused by it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note, six more throw-away SPA socks have been used since the initial report, less than ten minutes ago. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Could this be perhaps some sort of unregistered (but good faith) school project to edit Wikipedia? Just an idea. --Jayron32 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• What Jayron32 says was my first thought as well--but as I'm looking at the text I have this deja vu sensation, that I removed something like this (and possibly blocked a editor) a couple of weeks ago. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Googling the last user name on that list (Ryan baillargeon) suggests this is not some school project but an advocacy campaign. The individual's LinkedIn profile is pretty conclusive. CIreland (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm suspecting some off-site solicitation of an advocacy campaign as well. I was just contacted on my talk page by 3rdWorldkid (talk · contribs), who has also made one of these edits. They indicated that they had "undertook the edit on behalf of the Walk Free campaign".

I asked for clarification and pointed the user towards this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

3world Kid (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC) If you take a look at the reference to the entry, the Walk Free Foundation is mentioned and linked with the basis of the research shown. There was never any attempt to spam Wikipedia but rather to create awareness on the sites of a large number of countries that there is still slavery existing within its borders. If I had had any idea that this was against the rules, I should not have done it. The studies made are quite authoritative and the citation is clear.

I would like to echo what 3rdworldkid has said, and repeat, that even though this seams as slightly spamy with hundreds of similar edits, the study cited, and source are authoritative, and this is a real issue.Rhinorulz (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

3world Kid (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I have sent an email to the organisers informing them of this discussion and that they should have taken up contact with monitors before and not caught you all by surprise. I am hoping that they are not too busy coordinating their campaign to reply. On the other hand, this is a really serious issue and, despite the inconvenience it causes you, there are many countries where such a notice would definitely be warranted.

And in most country articles this content would be undue weight. Please use article talk pages to discuss this addition before making it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It seems like 3rdWorldkid (talk · contribs) and Rhinorulz (talk · contribs) are part of that same sock farm. — kikichugirl ^inquire 20:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is certainly serious (along with many others) - but that is no reason to ignore Wikipedia policies, and nor is a legitimate reason to copy-paste the same content into multiple articles in a manner that messes up the formatting (see for example here[97], where a 'modern slavery' header is added in the middle of a section, leading to the new section apparently including sections on 'Hydrocarbons', 'Labour market' 'Tourism' etc). Such careless and inconsiderate behaviour isn't going to result in anything other than reverts and blocks. I suggest that you inform whoever is behind this coordinated campaign that they need to stop now, before we have to resort to blacklisting their website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to not need to blacklist the website; but if the sockpuppetry and spamming continues, it may be necessary. Legitimate use of the url could still get approval via the WP:SWL on a case-by-case basis. It's an extra hastle, but the shear number of socks is rapidly making blacklisting look like the most viable option. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

With this diff here, another suspected sock - Neagle2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) — kikichugirl ^inquire 20:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

3world Kid (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I think the remark of kikichugirl is highly inflamatory and uncalled-for. I regularly sign petitions with a number of sites working towards social and environmental change. There seemed no reason not to support an action like this, although I did not realise it had been so badly prepared. I can only apologise for the inconvenience caused and hope that relationships can be patched up.

• This is a concerted effort by (I think) the organization to which this is being sourced. A good samaritan forwarded a recruitment email to OTRS as a heads up about a week ago. I saw it but didn't handle it, and I can't get into OTRS right now, so someone might want to look it up. So it's likely these are all or mostly meatpuppets, not socks. I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but as usual they tend to run afoul of guidelines and policies, not to mention MOS issues and whatnot. I would say since they all have a COI (in a sense), they should be creating an edit request instead of doing it themselves. In some cases the information could be merited, but it depends on the context and the manner in which the information is added. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of this information is more appropriate on the various Human Rights in Country articles, such as Human rights in Iran. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Now knowing of these other means, such as the edit request, I agree that this is spamy, I in my edit only noticed the improperly wrapped text, after submitting the first edit, and was in progress of re editing to fix the improperly wrapped section. I apologize at least for my part, and hope to be able still post legitimate edits. While I doubt they will listen to me, I'll send walk free a message.Rhinorulz (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog made a good point, especially about the COI bit. I do think they shouldn't continue until something is worked out though. — kikichugirl ^inquire 21:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• None of these accounts appear have been notified yet that anything is amiss (red linked talk pages). Under the circumstances, perhaps it would be appropriate to warn them all first as we are supposed with to with ANI reports (but not, incidentally, with SPI), give them 48 hours, and if there is no reaction, file a SPI with CU request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 9 December 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.

Repeated reverting without discussing

The following is copied from the archives

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:Roscelese has today repeatedly reverted, while keeping a little shy of the 3RR rule, to her own version of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism from texts by User:Bromley86, User:Padresfan94, and me (twice):

1. at 17:40 on 26 November 2014
2. at 05:41 on 27 November 2014
3. at 07:15 on 27 November 2014
4. at 18:20 on 27 November 2014

She has ignored appeals made to her both in edit summaries and on the article's talk page to discuss rather than edit-war. See in particular:

1. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Anti-consensus deletion of disliked but sourced information
2. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Edit-warring without discussion

Please advise. Esoglou (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The page has been fully-protected and I've offered to help clear things up on the talk page. m.o.p 19:14, 27 November 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.

1. Roscelese still will not discuss her claim that the statement, "circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable" means "homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation".
2. She also ignores the agreement by all participants, except herself, in this discussion and, as soon as the article was unblocked, has inserted her own unsupported text.

As long as Roscelese will not "discuss with the other party" and makes further edits without support from anyone else, the other party has no choice but to undo her undiscussed edits, while continuing to appeal to her to discuss them. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's less "Roscelese will not discuss" and more "the discussion has gone stale". Master of Puppets, would you like to give this another try? One of the content disputes seems to have been adequately resolved through mediation, at least. Ivanvector (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still here, though I can't do much about a stale discussion except remind the parties that edit warring is not going to get us anywhere. For what it's worth, the page has been protected again. m.o.p 20:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you not get the parties to discuss? The discussion has got "stale" only in the sense that Roscelese refuses to take part. You surely have noticed my appeals to her to discuss. I have now made yet another appeal. But Roscelese says: "I have no interest in what Esoglou has to say", and on the grounds of her lack of interest refuses to discuss. You may remember that I pointed out (in the last part of that long edit) that this is the basic difficulty; and that User:Elizium23 then commented: "Esoglou has hit on the crux of this matter." Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To put it another way, is it acceptable to edit Wikipedia and insist on the inalterability of the edits while refusing to discuss on the talk page the difficulties raised against the edits? Esoglou (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Since "this page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", I thought some administrator or experienced editor would say whether or not it is acceptable. Esoglou (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Esoglou: Sorry for the delay, I've been quite busy. I'll continue this discussion on your talk page. m.o.p 02:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of possible socks at Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal

I am seeing a-lot of accounts with few edits made outside of the topic area as well as new accounts. Now these could be innocent new editors but given the sensitive content I feel it is worth a look. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering the huge off-Wikipedia canvasing campaigns that have been going on for a month, this isn't hardly surprising. There is anything to be done. RGloucester — ☎ 03:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

sockpuppet

There on the link I noticed one. How do I report it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingslove2013 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What link? WP:SPI would be where you'd fill out a report, but you can go on and name the users and what evidence. Note that just reverting your edits is not considered enough to accuse someone of sockpuppetry (and can even be interpreted as a a personal attack). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kingslove2013: Yes, if multiple people revert your edits, it may mean that you're going against consensus. In that case, you should stop edit warring and engage them in discussion. If a disruptive user edit wars against consensus, gets blocked, and a new editor appears at the same article to resume the edit war (with the same rationales as the blocked editor), then it's reasonable to be suspicious. In this second case, there is behavioral evidence that can be cited at SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing/potential spamming by a user

Please see this contribution left on my talk page which was left on m talk page and evidence here that the user has left the same message on other users talk pages. Sport and politics (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure this is what is meant by canvassing, since the user actually asks for help improving the encyclopedia instead of support for any position in any discussion. Kleuske (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) P.S. It's customary, nay, required to notify the editor in question. Moreover, it is usually helpful to talk to that editor first. WP:ANI is a last resort, not a first. Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it's still a proposal but I'm not seeing where the notices are problematic. Neither of the prior discussions (if you can call them that) had much input at all. I'd suggest that the user do it as a proper RfC which notices many different places. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the reason that I posted notices on Sport and politics' and some other Wikipedians' talkpages is that the Community Portal's helpout section needs more blocks to better reflect English Wikipedia's current problems and there were only one Wikipedian replied to my post, meaning that most Wikipedians do not know or neglect this issue, not because I want to spam.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 09:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC) fix

Hoodie Allen vandalism

. . . is getting a bit out of hand. There seems to be at one SPA vandal that has earned a block, plus an edit summary attacking an editor that needs to be suppressed as offensive and defamatory. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary removed and Itmaddog blocked for vandalism. Hopefully resolved for the moment. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Threatening edit

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 might want to check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Combined_Joint_Task_Force_-_Operation_Inherent_Resolve&oldid=637241382.Casprings (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 01:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems like it should be reported to someone. Will it be?Casprings (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just some idiot with an internet connection and a poor grasp of spelling, those are a dime a dozen. I can't imagine needing to report it to anyone. Although @TParis:, you just blocked an IP indef as a VAO. I noticed because I made the same mistake a few days ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 9 December 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.

Alexander Prokhanov article: tagging/untagging

Please check the article's recent history. The 'neutrality' tag is being removed by the contributors who on the talk page try to accuse me of things I have nothing to do with. The reasons why I find the article biased are all there too. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Things have calmed down, a more constructive dialogue is taking shape, so this topic might be safely closed. I'm going to start expanding the article soon and foresee some complications, but hopefully we'll be able there to keep the bloodshed to a minimum :) -- Evermore2 (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick Griffin and User:John

User:John has removed content critical of Nick Griffin and protected that article because he believes that said content infringes WP:BLPSOURCES. I disagree with his actions. In an attempt to fix this disagreement I started this conversation on the BLP Noticeboard. Practically everyone in that conversation agrees that there is nothing objectionable about the content John removed, but he does not agree and will not unprotect the article or restore the content. He apparently is "waiting" for more comments. Personally, I believe he is delaying the inevitable.

Since I do not have the ability to restore it myself, I ask that someone who can, does. And I also ask that someone with experience writing controversial BLPs remind John that removing content critical of a such figures is not a good way to achieve any kind of neutrality. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

John, did you really intend to lock the article indefinitely?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course not, just while a consensus is reached about whether it is acceptable to state on a BLP: The Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie said "He emerged as the lying piece of work you always suspected." As the log entry says. --John (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Despite being one of the many to comment at BLPN, I wasn't aware that John is not only strongly advocating his lonely position here, but he's also used his admin powers to lock the article in the middle of a content dispute he's involved in. Didn't we used to have a policy against exactly that? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

References

• Comment - Yeah, that's about as inflammatory of an editorial comment as its gets. As long as there is "follow through", this seems like a logical action by John. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• John, what did you mean to do, if not to lock it indefinitely? "Until a consensus is reached" is indefinite, since we can't assume that consensus will be reached at a certain date. If you're ready to unprotect it when that happens, or if you don't mind someone else unprotecting as soon as that happens, there's nothing wrong with indefinite protection. Indefinite \= infinite. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, the more important issue is whether John should be the sole arbiter of what's acceptable per policy. John's distaste of certain tabloids is fairly well documented, and although I understand that technically he has a right to insist and rely on WP:BLP policy, there's the obvious question of John's interpretation of that policy. Frankly, much as I respect John, this has a distinct odor of WP:INVOLVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Why is the printing format relevant in the least? According to the links in the intro of its article, The Sun is a tabloid in the Tabloid (newspaper format) sense, not in the supermarket tabloid sense. I'm not familiar with John or with the subject of this article (I've heard of BNP before, but not Griffin), so I can't comment on the details. All I can say is that there's nothing per se wrong with including the statement in question; nobody, even Griffin and his strongest supporters, will disagree with the idea that the Sun columnist said this. We need to decide based on whether it's relevant and on whether it creates a generally non-neutral section and/or article, but "Person X said Y", sourced to something where X indeed says Y, isn't inherently problematic. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I never use the word "tabloid" in the format sense. My understanding is that both papers at issue here are tabloids in the gossipy, garbagy sense, and I believe that's the way John is interpreting them. Did you look at the image in The Sun-Herald? Really.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• As has already been raised in the BLP thread, "tabloid" is hardly a complimentary term in the UK but it's still a long way from a US tabloid. Are you aware that this is the UK paper, not the Australian? Why would you post such a link here otherwise? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• My error, you're right, it's The Sun (United Kingdom). However, they look fungible to me. I realize that UK tabloids are not as bad as, for example, The Enquirer, but that simply means that instead of being complete crap, they're just moderate crap, and they don't tend to go into things like UFOs and the like, which, as everyone well knows, we have only in the U.S. anyway. In any event, I'm not necessarily agreeing with John. Just trying to characterize the sources properly, although, admittedly, one could argue about how bad they are. If I recall, most editors take a more nuanced approach and say they're reliable for some things but not for others. But I don't think that reliability is the issue here, anyway; it's whether we should quote their columnists, no matter what they say, as long as we attribute it to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well I hate to throw this in but I don't see the consistency here. The Question Time British National Party controversy article including the Guardian saying Griffin "looked just plain shifty" which isn't too much better than the Hastings piece. I believe there's a daily mail cite there too but not to the op-ed sections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's an argument over whether a tabloid (and often unreliable) source is nonetheless a valid reference for the statement that a columnist in that source wrote certain words. Also whether including those columnists views gives them undue weight. But that's an argument for BLPN - this board is more about the appropriateness of John protecting the page while also vigorously participating in the BLPN debate. And the answer, reasonably, is no.

However, it seems overly bureaucratic to remove the protection and then restore it via RFPP. There is also no hurry re these comments being included or removed from the article. Suggest we leave the protection in place until the BLPN discussion concludes, and act on any consensus there. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please define "conclude" in a practical, straightforward way? The on-going WP:CONSENSUS -- not unanimity, but consensus -- has been to cite briefly the columnists in the article. However, John -- who is acting as an admin and an involved contributor simultaneously -- insists on dragging this out. I strongly suspect the reason is because he's hoping the WP:CONSENSUS will change in his favor at some distant point. His behavior doesn't strike me as reasonable. A ruling on John's conflict of interest and a time-frame to implement WP:CONSENSUS seems warranted, I would think. Oddexit (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While making no comment on John's behaviour as an admin, I would like to endorse his views on the suitability of the publications known as "The Sun" and "The Daily Mail" - in that they are about as reliable as used bog paper. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst agreeing with that valuation of the two papers - both have been known to simply make stories up - I'm unsure that their unreliability precludes us from stating that a notable columnist actually said those words in the paper itself; after all it's pretty clear that they did. Having said that, I'd trust Kelvin McKenzie or Max Hastings to be factually accurate about as much as I'd trust Nick Griffin (i.e. not at all). I'm sure we could find some more reliable commentary in better sources. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The relevant difference between UK and US tabloids here is that UK tabloids, or at least their floating readers, control election results. In the US, we might be interested in what Fox News (about as trustworthy as the Mail) says in commentary about a racist politician, but here in the UK we care a lot about how racists are reported in the Mail and the Sun, simply because many of Griffin's supporters, or at least his middle class fellow travellers, will be reading either the Sun or the Mail. The Grauniad being dismissive of Griffin would be a "dog bites man" story with nothing to it. When even the Sun castigates him though, that's an attack from his own side. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

One's personal or political (dis)like of Kelvin McKenzie or Max Hastings really has no bearing on Wikipedia's concept of "reliability" regarding op-ed pieces. The only question regarding reliability that needs to be asked for an op-ed is if the publication has third-party editorial oversight per WP:BIASED. Both publications do. Unless the Wikipedia Community specifically votes to ban The Daily Mail and The Sun op-eds (they haven't), or specifically Kelvin McKenzie and Max Hastings from being EVER cited for their op-ed opinions (they clearly haven't done that, either), I don't see how it's possible to exclude citing their published political opinions. However, that's a discussion for the BLPN not for the AN/I. I'll repeat the relevant question for the AN/I that needs to be asked here: Could someone please define "conclude" in a practical, straightforward way? The on-going WP:CONSENSUS -- not unanimity, but consensus -- has been to cite briefly the columnists in the article. I would think that if WP:CONSENSUS holds for the next few days, it's reasonable to respect it. Oddexit (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think the sun shines out of Nick Griffin’s ass. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel echoes of Talk:Brad Pitt and Talk:John Barrowman here ..... it would have been helpful if diffs could have been provided up front, but a quick look at Nick Griffin shows an slow-burning edit-war by John, PoD and Emeraude (talk · contribs) ([98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]). I don't really have a strong view whether the content should stay or go. On the one hand, "The Sun's 'x' said 'y'" is one of the rare instances I would accept a citation to The Sun (and a quick persual of my userpage should make it very obvious what my opinion on the paper is, and it isn't positive); on the other, why is Kelvin McKenzie's specific opinion important for the reader's understanding of the topic? I think the result of full-protecting the article with the contentious content removed is probably the lesser of all evils in terms of action to take, but I also think John was WP:INVOLVED here as WP:NOT3RR states "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial." Since the edit war was slow, it would not have harmed the project to ask for another admin's view on this and wait on that. Anyway, we are where we are, I recommend consensus is reached on WP:BLPN, the article unprotected, and everyone takes a deep breath and moves on ie: no administrator action (aside from unprotection) required for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A deep breath seems to be a good idea since we'll all die of oxygen starvation before John accepts he's wrong. Parrot of Doom 00:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not so much an edit war as a question of an admin throwing his weight around and making gratuitous threats to established and experienced editors. Emeraude (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A consensus now appears to be forming on WP:BLPN so hopefully that article will move forward soon. It's probably not in my best interests to criticise a longstanding editor and admin who has recently been incredibly helpful with a FAC I'm struggling with. Nevertheless I think it would be beneficial to the community and to his own standing for John to realise that what he did was contentious and debatable enough to be considered a use of administrator tools while in a content dispute, and hence a violation of WP:INVOLVED. I don't see anyone upthread challenging that notion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Persistent spammer

For about a year or so, a lot of turkish IPs have been spamming this article. Might be a good idea to semi-protect it. Eik Corell (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a month; let's see if they forget about it by this time in January. If not, we can always reprotect it. In general, this kind of request ought to go to WP:RFPP, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Tag-team / organized abuse by User:Elaqueate and User:Guerillero to WP:OWN Vani Hari

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 Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuerillero&diff=637259199&oldid=637185720

Both Guerillero and Elaqueate are members of www.facebook.com/groups/foodbabearmy on which an off-wiki campaign to "retake Vani Hari's wikipedia page" has been organized.

Both are involved in an organized campaign to WP:OWN the page through abuse of Guerillero's admin buttons.

They even tag their discussion as "science socks", as if "science" were something to be opposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the Facebook group discussion, but it's fairly obvious to me that "science sock" is shorthand for a specific person's sockpuppet. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Commentary in those discussions, including the user stating that they are "an admin on wikipedia" who "will handle the page", instructs their users that "shills of science babe" are supposedly coming to "change the article." It's pretty obvious that they mean that, when they say "science sock." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is true that Guerillero is organizing with an off-wiki group to use their admin account to influence the content an article or the direction of talk page discussion for that article, then they should be restricted by the community from using admin powers in any way related to the article. Deli nk (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should add that the person they're talking about seems to be User:DavidPatrick70, who was blocked in February after a checkuser. Incidentally, it's considered good form to notify the people you're reporting on ANI. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing the user's edits it looks like the same sort of situation. Elaqueate calls someone a "sockpuppet" (wikipedia for "shill" per Food Baby Army practice) to have them removed instead of simply pursuing normal, collegial discussions and dispute resolution procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A cursory look at Elaqueate's edits show that when he's filed requests for sockpuppet investigations, it's been with good evidence. In one case, the user he was reporting had admitted to having edited Wikipedia under another account! So, I'm willing to assume good faith that when Elaqueate has made accusations of sockpuppetry, it's with cause and not just to stifle debate.

WP:Sock puppetry is the policy that covers use of multiple accounts. It's not inherently bad to use multiple accounts; however, a user cannot just create a new account to get around a block or other sanctions levied against an old account. That's abuse of multiple accounts, and the standard policy there is to block the new account if the old one was blocked. (Typically, the new account is blocked indefinitely, and if the old account is blocked for a defined period of time, the block is extended.) The policy covers misuse of multiple accounts by a single person acting alone or by a person conspiring to get a group of people to edit an article. Thus, any organized campaign to edit the article, as you alleged on the article's talk page,[107] could be dealt with per the sock puppetry policy. —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that a user "Jytdog" on that talk page has just incivilly threatened me for bringing this up there as you suggested and repeatedly has tried to remove discussion of Elaqueate and Guerillero's coordinated disruption efforts from the talk page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::Additionally, if you're talking about a claim that someone was "blocked in february", any so-called checkuser evidence is necessarily stale. I can find no "disruption" in the edits of the user involved, which is why I believe (per the editing patterns of Elaqueate's past repeated use of "appeals to Guerillero" as a proxy to have targeted users blocked) that the conduct is a violation of wikipedia policy. Guerillero also maintains a sockpuppet account "In Actu" to avoid scrutiny of his actions when WP:INVOLVED in conflicts such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppets, IP, would you like to explain your relationship to Let's Have Some Science? You and he seem to have a rather overwhelming amount in common, including editing schedules, single topic of interest, and the people you think are awful. Please note that evading a block via IP editing isn't allowed. Even more so when you're banned under an earlier account and the account that's blocked was blocked for evading that ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 9 December 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.

oops, can someone redact my edit summary ?

Resolved

I did not phrase the edit summary appropriately here [108] and would appreciated it if someone could redact it. While that is in fact what the allegations of ethical lapses have been, those allegations have been shown to be false from the very beginning and should not be presented otherwise. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

revdel'd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism from Jeffco Public Schools

I recommend blocking IP edits between the range of 199.96.186.2 and 199.96.186.255. This IP range belongs to the Jeffco Public Schools system according to whois. While the school system owns 199.96.184.* - 199.96.191.*, the bulk of the vandalism seems to come from 199.96.186.* addresses (which I presume is probably allocated to one particular school in the district). While I have not examined all of the 500+ edits found in this X!'s tools report, less than 5% of ~100 or so edits I looked at were not obvious vandalism (or self-undoing of vandalism). Nearly all the non-obvious vandalism I found came from 199.96.186.1, which I image may be controlled by a school administrator.

Though this is pure conjecture, I strongly suspect that vandalism become "the thing to do" for kids at one particular school. This is evidenced by the fact that the flow of disruptive edits abruptly slow to a trickle at the beginning of June and resume in full force at end of August, which coincide with the start/end of a school year. While most of the disruptive edits are obvious quickly reverted by bots or self, there were also many edits which were subtle changes in dates and trivial details that have lingered for many months before being corrected. I have not even completely ruled out that the "school administrator" edits are not vandalism because I'm not familiar enough with the geography of Honnavar‎.

Because there has been sustained vandalism over the course of several months that resumed even after the kids lost access during their summer vacation, I recommend a long-duration block of at least 300 days (10 months), which would be roughly a month after the start of the next school year. Note that IP range, which has been controlled by the Jeffco district since 1998, does not appear to have edited Wikipedia prior to April 2014, meaning that we're unlikely to block a significant number of real contribution even if we extend the block to multiple years. —CodeHydro 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the range 199.96.186.0/24 for 7 months (212 days) to take us through to the end of the school year. I will follow up in the fall when school resumes to see if the activity resumes at that point. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Block/revdel needed urgently

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

---

Can an admin deal with this [109] (being reposted repeatedly) please. I've asked via IRC, with no response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 10 December 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.

Serial vandalism and distortion of statistics at Aliyah?

• Aliyah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Most of the last 1000 edits on Aliyah, dating back more than a year, have been by a series of IPs (evidently the same person) amending contemporary and historical statistics. In some cases, they have maintained the original sources, in other cases they have added new sources. Most of these sources are either broken links, in another language, or to Google books; every time that I have been able to find the source cited, it has not confirmed the edit. Since the editor refuses to communicate in any way, it is impossible to determine whether they are using more accurate information, or are simply vandalising. Because this has continued for so long, with so many edits, it means that the integrity of the whole article is seriously challenged, and a major clean-up by an expert is urgently required.

I raised this over a month ago at Talk:Aliyah, with no response, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, where a brief discussion failed to address or resolve this apparent problem. The article was briefly semi-protected, which put a temporary stop to this disruptive behaviour; but the IP editor has now returned and continues the same pattern.

It is, of course, possible that my concern is misplaced, and that the edits are correct and valid. But the obscure sourcing, and the editor's complete failure to communicate, suggest that this is unlikely. How could this issue best be addressed? RolandR (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not even POV-pushing. It looks to be a long-term campaign of random vandalism to numerical values, usually undertaken from 70.* IPs hosted by Bell Canada. For instance 70.24.68.152 (talk · contribs) and 70.29.119.33 (talk · contribs). The IPs never participate on talk except to remove messages left for them. I've applied six months of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Ed. But meanwhile, how do we deal with the several hundred edits since September 2013? Since these are interspersed with a few good edits (by IPs as well as accounts) and were made by multiple IPs, I don't know if a script could do this. RolandR (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Abortion - subject to sanctions- editing by MarieWarren

I am not a regular editor of abortion-related matters, and nor am I familiar with the workings of the various versions of sanctions applying to this subject area. That said ...

University and College Union is on my watchlist, so I noticed this edit by MarieWarren (talk · contribs) which added a new subsection "Sex-selective abortion" and the text "Through their affiliation with Abortion Rights, they support the position that abortion based on sex selection should be legalised." (no links, no sources). Looking into it I discovered the existence of the organisation Abortion Rights (I've created a redirect to one of the two groups which merged to form it), and that it campaigns "to defend and extend women's rights and access to safe, legal abortion", lists support from the TUC and many trade unions, and yes, in a pdf "Statement on sex-selective abortion", it opposes the criminalisation of sex-selective abortion, in the context of opposing any restriction on a woman's right to choose. I edited the section to change the title to "Abortion" and the text to

"UCU supports Abortion Rights which campaigns "to defend and extend women's rights and access to safe, legal abortion"; among its statements it opposes the criminalisaton of sex-selective abortion.

which I thought was a neutral, sourced, statement (though possibly still giving undue weight to one single policy of Abortion Rights).

I discovered that the same editor had made her first 5 edits today (I'm using "her" because her username includes "Marie"), adding similar text to Trades Union Congress and 4 unions. Another editor had reverted her on Unite the Union; I could find no mention of National Union of Teachers on the Abortion Rights site so removed that information; I edited the Trade Union Congress (here)and UNISON (here) articles on the same lines as the UCU article.

Coming back to editing just now I find that she has edited the TUC article to change "opposes the legalisation of" (wording used in AR's leaflet) to "wishes to legalise".

I now see she has also added similar POV text to articles on several other unions (eg "The union campaigns for abortion on demand and the legalisation of sex-selective abortion ..." in this edit). She is adding a valid (though bare URL) reference to a TUC leaflet about abortion which includes the logos of 14 unions as well as the TUC and supports the Abortion Rights campaign.

I think that her singling out one policy among Abortion Rights' many statements, and misrepresenting it, is ... poor editing, at the least, but I'm stepping back at this point wary of the sanctions in this area. This editor's editing, in this delicate and sanctionable area, seems potentially problematic. PamD 17:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely under WP:ARBAB. Their edits have been entirely about political advocacy and not adhering to Wikipedia's sourcing and neutral point of view policies.--v/r - TP 19:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Scratch that. I've unblocked them. The new rules for discretionary sanctions require that she first receive an alert so I left one on her talk page.--v/r - TP 19:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Rolled back the remaining three edits. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like 81.102.24.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) might be the same editor undoing the reverts. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Might? I've warned, uh, them both. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Thank you PamD for those useful edits and inserting the referencing. I am still learning the referencing style and I don't always get it right. I do try to provide references for all of the information that I add.

Apologies to all for the reverts that may have been carried out by a friend that I was talking to. I have now explained to them how to set up a proper account.

Thank you EdJohnston. My statements on union campaigns were posted in order to demonstrate the range of topics that they aim to support. All statements of affiliation of unions can be supported by documentation. I do not, at any time, give a POV on whether the unions' campaigns should be supported or not. I do not give a POV on sex selection abortion. I merely state that they have these campaigns. I hope that you will allow knowledge of what the unions campaign for remain as edits to their wiki pages. Please don't ban me without further discussion on ways forward. MarieWarren (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Marie. The problem is that whoever edited from the IP reverted another user so as to reinstate your edits exactly, which does not look good, especially when it happens identically at two different articles. Please be aware of the rule against offsite recruitment to edit Wikipedia, and tell your friend about it: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate." If your friend does create an account, the same principle will still hold. Incidentally, may I ask if you're a new user, or have you edited Wikipedia under another account? You seem highly competent with Wikipedia markup right from your very first edit, which was yesterday. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the compliment about using markup. I am just copying the style I see. It takes me quite a while of looking at previews to get it right and I still make mistakes - particularly in terms of referencing. I have used other wikis before: http://tardis.wikia.com/ . There are so many rules about wikipedia. I had no idea about that one about recruitment. I had assumed that it would be best to get as many people as involved as possible. Obviously, I see now that isn't the case. I am taking some time now to study all the rules. It took me a while to find them. MarieWarren (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:4TheWynne keeps removing valid sources and is protecting a deceptive article

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

---

Note: I'm moving this discussion for the user to here from the archive page where they originally added it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive855 --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I was told to find sources that clarify (against) the claims that "Rise against was formed as Transistor Revolt", Transistor Revolt was Formed as "Transistor revolt" and put out one release as "Transistor Revolt". "Rise Against" was formed as "Rise Against". So I did , they keep being reverted to say "rise Against was formed as Transistor Revolt" (they also incurred personnel changes) and now I am being wiki hounded. this person is following me around the web changing much of what I do . Funny thing for like 6 years Ive only experienced this behavior twice. . Rise Against didn't form as Transistor revolt , Transistor revolt formed as Transistor revolt . I added a valid source and the code was messed up and this person deleted it instead of fixing it . The Article is being written to seem as if a Band who formed in 2001 really formed years Earlier in 1999. though the band name and release was /is Transistor revolt . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

here is one page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_Against

this has been going on for a little while now 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

here too they are calling it "disruptive editing" since when is whats valid and accurate "disruptive" 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_McIlrath&action=history

User:4TheWynne keeps asking for editors to "protect" the False claims 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek#Protecting_Rise_Against

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rise_Against&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apokryltaros said it "contradicted claims" which it did Not

""Independent years (1999–2003) Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt[2] in 1999<------

by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter.[3] The first lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000, a year before signing with Fat Wreck Chords. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, after a short time with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun as the drummer.

The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001<--------

and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini) on Fat Wreck Chords that same year.[4] Mr. Precision left the band in 2001, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.[2][5]

After touring in support of The Unraveling, the band returned to the studio in December 2002 to work on their second full-length, Revolutions per Minute (produced by Bill Stevenson and Jason Livermore at The Blasting Room),[3][4] which was released in 2003. The band toured extensively in support of its first two records, opening for Sick of It All, NOFX, Agnostic Front, No Use for a Name,[6] AFI, and Strung Out. In addition, Rise Against participated in the 2003 Warped Tour.[7]"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.195.69 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 December 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:205.155.71.58

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.

---

Despite being banned in Nov 2008, this user continues to vandalize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draughtmanus (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a dynamic IP at California State University - it's highly unlikely to be the same person still using it six years later. Squinge (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal information available on Wikipedia

(Redacted) and reported to WP:OS Admins: Please revdelete the diffs if you can. Lor^Chat 22:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Esth270

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 all, would an uninvolved administrator please review the dispute over the blocking policy as it is being applied to User:Esth270 by admin User:Doc_James. To prevent forking, please join in to the existing discussion on the other noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking_students. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:53, 10 December 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 Dino nam

User:Dino nam is making a series of disruptive edits on Battle of Cua Viet and Battle of Thường Ðức providing non RS and adopting a very argumentative tone when I have pointed out that changes need to be in line with RS and so I am requesting an Admin warning or temporary block. Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dino nam had made triple R on 324th Division (Vietnam) and I request he/she be temporarily blocked. Mztourist (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48

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.

---

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been making personal and abusive comments to other users, including Macosal (talk · contribs), Skyring (talk · contribs) (Pete) and myself sroc (talk · contribs), despite repeated requests to desist and despite having been having been banned several times for personal attacks in the past. In particular:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia):
  • "There is an existing consensus, from only eight months ago. ALL the back and forth, edit warring, vandalism and incivility has been by soccer fans refusing to accept that consensus. And you're part of it. Are you proud of that?" 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "I will continue to highlight disruptive editing, especially when it's packaged in an expression of concern about the disruption. "Are you proud of that?" was a way of doing so." 17:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "You have misrepresented me again. Piss off." 04:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "NOW FUCK OFF, AND GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" 06:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• User talk:HiLo48:
  • "Piss off." 02:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In removing comments from talk page: "Remove bullshit" 03:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Fuck off from my Talk page, please" 08:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from myself and others on both of these pages show repeated requests for HiLo48 to be civil, to avoid personal comments, and to stick to the issues. HiLo48 has not shown any remorse – on the contrary, has defended the comments and sought to deflect criticism – and has no only continued to make personal comments but escalated them (snarky comments → "piss off" → "bullshit" → "FUCK OFF!"). —sroc 💬 09:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that HiLo48 removed this section himself with a rude edit summary, so I have restored it. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Stalker observation. I sympathise with HiLo. He's just had a months ban dished out, and this gives all the appearance of a lynching. Very unsporting behaviour from Football/Soccer supporters. No FIFA Fair Play award to you guys. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:48, 10 December 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:The Rambling Man again violating IBan

Complaint withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) Someone will need to notify TRM because I don't know that I'm allowed to do that myself. You know, I am now really sorry that I extended a goodwill gesture of asking for an early lift of his recent 48-hour block. Not only did it not change his behavior, it's actually made it worse. There's a lengthy discussion on the ref desk talk page, focused on TRM's belligerent attitude. He continues to justify his behavior on the same grounds as a year ago, which led to the IBAN and (briefly) a ban from the ref desk also. None of that matters, except that he continues to violate the IBAN by referring to Medeis and me. How do I know, when he never mentions us by name? Here's how: Please note this diff,[110] in which he says "As I have said before, I am limited in what I can express, but am constantly dismayed by the 'quality' of responses." Now, as far as I know, he is only IBANned with Medeis and me, not with anyone else on the ref desk. So there is nothing otherwise limiting what he wants to say there about other editors. The obvious-as-the-nose-on-my-face conclusion is that he is referring ONLY to me and/or Medeis. (I see that another editor picked up on that insight also.[111]) Despite his frequent claims, I DO NOT want him indef'd or necessarily banned from the ref desk. I just want him to stop talking about us. So I must ask the good admins here, What will it take to get him to stop??? He treated the 48-hour block with scorn, so I don't know where you go from here. Thank you for your kind attention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC) What? I read most of WT:Reference desk#User:The Rambling Man, and I examined the two diffs in the above, and I see nothing that violates an IBAN. It is perfectly acceptable of TRM to say "I am limited in what I can express"—that is not a violation. The mention of 'quality' is generic—there is no way to read that as being directed at particular people. The refdesk section is a complaint about this edit by TRM where TRM hatted some garbage about cats on 4 December 2014—garbage that does not involve you, and which only very peripherally involved the other editor, and which occurred before the recent block. Please do not post mysteries at ANI—what is the allegation? The section at the refdesk talk which complains about TRM appears extremely misguided to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Are you saying an IBAN allows the one user to talk about the other user as long as they don't specify names? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC) And before you comment further, please notify the user about this ANI entry, as I don't think I'm allowed to do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)  Done Avono (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC) This tag-team harassment has to stop: it is becoming increasingly disruptive. As per Johnuniq, I see no violation: TRM has worded his comment to avoid interaction, not try and push the boundaries of it. Take the refdesk off your watchlist and work on something else, as you're obviously not enjoying your time there. If this constant baiting/ANI reporting continues, I'm getting close to the point of suggesting topic bans for a few people to keep them away from the hot spots, to see if that sorts matters out. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC) The harassment is in the opposite direction from what you claim, and I want it stopped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I only see two people filing spurious claims at ANI. If it pains you so much, take it (and any other forum) off your watch list before a formal process decides that enough is enough and you are all stopped from visiting them. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC) That's not necessary. I will simply ignore TRM's harassment henceforth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Support. IBANs do not exist for the benefit of the editors to which they apply; they exist for the benefit of the community. Part of being a mature adult (in real life and well as on wiki) is realizing "this person just rubs me the wrong way, I should just minimize how much I interact with them." IBANs are Wikipedia's way of dealing editors who have appeared not to have figured that out yet. Parsing every statement another editor makes to see how it could be a violation (he said "editor" -- I'm an editor, let me go run to ANI) is very much missing the point. NE Ent 11:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC) User:NE Ent are you supporting the idea that TRM is breaching his ban? It reads like you oppose it. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I'm assuming I'm able to comment here, please remove/indicate if that is incorrect. I opened the thread on the RD talk page about TRM and their behaviour there, while I do believe that there is a genuine problem and that, perhaps, a ban from that specific area should be discussed (pending the outcome of that thread), I do not see any indication that TRM was violating the IBAN - despite some strange insinuations that I was trying to get them to say something prohibited (I'm not), there is no indication that they have commented upon, involved, or otherwise the editors they are not permitted to interact with.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Phoenixia1177, You are entirely able to comment here if you wish, and your opinion is entirely germane to the situation here. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC) ... per Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_noticeboards NE Ent 11:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Oppose Oh come on. I'm also dismayed by the quality of responses on the Ref Desks, where I've been, on and off, a regular for about seven years. In fact, I moaned about it only recently. And my dismay is not aimed at any specific editors. There's a general tendency to discuss elements the OP hasn't asked about, making factual inaccuracies without blushing, people just not providing any references. If you have evidence of TRM making a comment about a specific individual in breach of sanction, please give the diff. Otherwise, this can be closed. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Support Oppose Ban/Boomerang. This is not IBAN violation. TRM's statement refers to the ref desk as a whole,As an uninvolved editor I cannot see how this is supposed to singely refer to an editor. Baseball_Bugs needs to cool down. Avono (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC) User:Avono, do you mean Oppose? --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC) @Dweller: Thanks thought we were referring to SchroCat's statement. Avono (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I don't need to "cool down", as there is nothing to cool down from. I just need to take the advice of others here, and ignore TRM's harassment henceforth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Boomerang - Obviously invalid ANI, needs to boomerang right back on the filer in order to get their own disruption to stop. This can literally only be interpreted as an IBAN violation if you specifically want it to be one. It really is that simple. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I second that this should be closed forthwith. Doc talk 11:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I have been putting up with this stuff all year, and have held my tongue until recently. So far, only one admin has been willing to stand up to TRM's constant harassment. It is evident that the rest of you are unwilling to enforce the IBAN. The message here seems to be that when he talks about me, I should ignore it. I didn't think that's how an IBAN was supposed to work. But apparently, in some cases, it does. Therefore, you may as well close it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC) The problem here is that no-one agrees that it is about you (or anyone else in particular. As I've suggested, take it off your watchlist and be useful elsewhere: it'll be less stressful and more enjoyable for you. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I'm not under any stress. I just want him to stop talking about me, as per the IBAN rules. Since no one is willing to tell him to stop it, I'll just go back to pretending he doesn't exist, and all will be swell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I'm going to repeat and hope you take it on board: no-one in the thread thinks he is talking about you, so there is nothing to tell him to stop. BBB, this really is getting into harassment grounds now. There have been several visits to ANI by you and another editor; on each occasion except one you have been refuted: a topic ban proposal may be the only way to stop the disruption here and on the pages in question. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just a quick couple of notes, before this is archived, to prevent this from being revisited in a day/week/month etc:

  Clarification needed: just need to take the advice of others here, and ignore TRM's harassment henceforth - no such acknowledgement exists, no such "harassment" has been acknowledged by any single person other than the complainant.

  Clarification needed: That's not necessary. I will simply ignore TRM's harassment henceforth - no such "harassment" has been acknowledged by any party other than the complainant.

  Clarification requested: I have been putting up with this stuff all year - what "stuff"? "all year"? What? Diffs?

• It's apparent that some folks are really keen to chat about me, even though they shouldn't and the IBAN prevents them from doing so. But one of the complainants has started this thread, got to the point where enough opposition has occurred, and then closed it when it became a bit difficult because so many people objected to current approach. I'd prefer to keep this open and explore the best way to stop this happening again. We've had one suggestion, to prevent this ongoing harassment and baseless accusation to be met with a topic ban. I'm only exploring this avenue because I know that I'm being threatened with further trips to ANI in a month or so from one or more of the complainants. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the IBan is unfortunate and not very practical when it comes to WP:ITN/C as both you and medeis comment, discuss, and vote on many items there, inevitably leading to an artificial situation when you're discussing the same aspect of an argument.

With regards to the reference desk, I have often seen you lodge a strongly generalized complaint of its weaker moments, but when other editors reply that they (and yet others) do try to stay on topic and add serious and referenced factual replies, your answer is sometimes (paraphrased) : "I don't mean you personally, I mean generic you." As I don't recall seeing you addressing any editors by name, I get the impression that you mean medeis and Baseball Bugs. (Else you should give examples/diffs, beyond linking to an entire thread with all sorts of replies, including factual and referenced ones). Is IBan stopping you from straight talk? If so, I do think it would be better for you to refrain from that kind of criticism unless you give concrete examples that don't involve medeis an Baseball Bugs. Unfortunately you just come across as a wet blanket when dropping your diffuse downers at the desks.

Actually my suggestion is to lift this IBan, for the three of you to realize how silly this is, and find a way to co-exist and even interact without personalized conflict, but also without being kept on a leash. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

None of that actually addresses the points I've raised, but thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as the users in question are welcome at the RD and the IBAN is in effect, this issue is likely to arise again, and again. To effectively edit there almost guarantees the users will have to interact, in some manner. Moreover, the desk, and what goes on there, seems to be a point of contention among these users - and unlike an article, the desk will never stabilize to a more "finished" version, so it is unlikely the situation will resolve itself with time. To that end, I suggest, since all three should be given equal consideration, that each be topic banned from the desk or that the IBAN be removed. While a strong step, in either direction, it appears the same disruption will continue till one of those steps is taken.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It won't arise with me, because after this section is closed, I will be ignoring him in future. I believe my efforts at the ref desk have improved in the last year, and that I can no longer be complained about in the way that TRM still does. Evidence is that no one else has griped at me for many months now. That in itself is a good sign. I also don't see any reason to ban either of the other two parties from the ref desk. Medeis is a wealth of knowledge on many subjects. And when TRM is not grousing, he makes good contributions to the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I, to an extent, agree and am not necessarily pushing for a ban. However, I do believe that if the IBAN cannot be successfully lifted and if all involved cannot interact in a more civil manner, then the only reasonable step is a ban, of all involved, from the desk. Elsewise, there will always be room for some insinuation the IBAN has been violated; or you all, haphazardly, in your own way, play out what is, effectively, the same end anyway (though, that is just as likely to cause more disruption). Thus, we should either drop any formal restrictions or push them to their logical conclusion, lest we stay in an uncomfortable and tedious middle.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur that the IBAN should be nullified. It was imposed sometime in January past, and was to be formally revisited no sooner than a year later. So come the anniversary, editors on ANI could decide whether to lift the ban or not. (It was not an ArbCom ban.) If it can't be, then everyone subjected to it should simply try to do better. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree and think that would be the best direction to go in:-) Are we able to handle that here or do is a new section needed to proceed with reconsidering, and hopefully removing, the IBAN?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It originated from ANI, as I recall. I'm not sure the minimum of one year is cast in stone, as "consensus can change". You could formally pose the idea here and see if it flies. I suspect the three involved parties would all be in favor of either dropping or altering the IBAN, but they should speak for themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will open the matter tonight when I am in front of an actual computer again, and notify all three involved.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, Baseball Bugs has indicated that he wants the IBAN dropped in order to stage yet another assault on me, i.e. so that he has carte blanche to dig up as much dubious dirt as he possibly can, including any dubious references to him (and/or the other person involved in the IBAN), just as we have seen, what, eight times here at ANI? Personally, I would like the IBAN to remain firmly and indefinitely in place. That said, it's worth noting that both of the other parties just open an ANI thread whenever they feel desperate to talk about me. I have done no such thing, despite noting the tag-teaming and email vendettas. Status quo should stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, the point of me continuing this thread was to ensure that the claims made by Baseball Bugs just before he closed the thread were completely untrue and based in no way in fact. This is important because when the next thread which he starts in a week or month or so, this will no doubt be used as "evidence", yet there is nothing that substantiates any of his claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, no matter whether the IBAN is retained or dropped, I will never again file a complaint against TRM. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Being discussed in a separate section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

MadGuy7023

Misuse of rollback purely in an attempt to conceal blatant wrongdoing as related in report from IP. --Marcus Az-Absent (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it only coincidence that User:MadGuy7023 has already reported you at WP:RVAN. Looks like tit4tat from here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I get the impression the OP is Tobias Conradi, per creation of Time in Austria, etc. Anyone familiar with his history? I'm not. Anyway, I've dealt with the AIV report. And Madguy, please don't remove bogus reports about yourself; it muddies the waters and confuses things for others who don't know what's going on. And causes a lot of edit conflicts at AIV. Just leave it there, or comment on it, and an admin will understand it's bogus in about 15 seconds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the report, it was not bogus - if it had been then I wouldn't have restored it either. It seems that a BLANKING issue was violated a good dozen times. Either we observe rules or we don't. --Marcus Az-Absent (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, he was edit warring with a vandal to restore warnings on the user talk page of someone who vandalized about 30 articles in 15 minutes. Yes, you aren't supposed to do that, but anyone who thinks that's the critical issue here, and worthy of an AIV report, does not have sufficient judgement to participate at AIV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparent mistake in sockpuppet case

A few days ago, I submitted an SPI regarding AsharaDayne, who I believed to be a sock of serial disrupter Greekboy12345er6, and I reverted several edits by this editor. At the time, I was being stalked by JarlaxleArtemis, who reverted scores of my edits. This led to Sjö submitting an SPI, mistakenly identifying the IP used by JA as a sock of AsharaDayne. AD was then blocked for sockpuppetry as a result of this submission, rather than mine. When my submission was noted, this led to AD being blocked indefinitely, on the basis of the earlier, mistaken, identification.

Although I still believe that AD is a sock of Greekboy, this has not in fact been investigated, and I could be mistaken. It's possible that AD has been incorrectly labelled as a sock, and blocked for the wrong reasons. Could someone please look into this, and advise the best way forward. RolandR (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to reopen that SPI. Let's discuss over there? Courcelles 14:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a side issue. The account has been sufficiently disruptive that the first step is to evaluate whether it deserves a block on the merits of its own contributions, and I think the answer is yes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objections to a new investigation, but I don't think that I can contribute anything to it. Do whatever you think is best. Sjö (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I wasn't even contemplating unblocking AsharaDayne, in fact, CU found more socks that need evaluating. Courcelles 15:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, for that reason in makes sense to reopen the report. The AsharaDayne looks like a pro-Russian Ukrainian conflict specialist. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Admin Guerillero participating in private board for off-wiki targeting of article and abusing admin abilities to win content dispute

Banned user harassing administrators

Admin Guerillero, active through sockpuppets or meatpuppets on Vani Hari, has been participating in the new "secret, private" group facebook.com/groups/foodbabearmy. The provided link is a screenshot from his post two days ago in the group, soliciting Food Babe followers to alter her article and providing guidance on avoiding being caught. http://postimg.org/image/kig2mpmt7/b403685a/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkepticismNye (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC) I have blocked this user as a duck sock of User:DavidPatrick70. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidPatrick70 and the thread on this page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tag-team / organized abuse by User:Elaqueate and User:Guerillero to WP:OWN Vani Hari. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) I avoided commenting on this before because I thought it was patently silly and transparently so. But it looks like the checkuser-blocked user has started impersonating Wikipedia editors on Facebook after they received their latest blocks. Not very convincing, as why would anyone, let alone an admin, use an identical username on Facebook in order to take part in "secret, private" conspiracies? This seemed harmless at first, but it's still has the potential for lingering obnoxious disruption.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sony Pictures

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 trying to find the wiki article on the Sony Pictures hack but cannot. was it deleted? if so where is the AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neukenjezelf (talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have given the above user a usernameblock, as his name is clearly offensive (Dutch for "fuck yourself"). Fram (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You're giving them too much credit, Fram--that's some embarrassingly poor Dutch syntax on the fucker's part. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 11 December 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.

Rollback proposal

To avoid forking the discussion, could admins please weigh in on the discussion at the (relatively unwatched and unmonitored by admins) Education Program noticeboard, here? Among other things being discussed there is that the use of that board, monitored by Wiki Ed staff (unaffiliated with Wikipedia, or some weird arrangement I don't understand) for reporting student editing issues has led to a walled garden, shielding the regular admin community from the problems occurring.[112] More admin input into the specific cases of copyvio, editwarring, tag-teaming, COI, explanation of what course instructor rights are and how they can be removed, and the potential use of rollback to remove blocks of student edits after copyvio is revealed in courses with uninvolved professors would be helpful. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PROD notification template problem

036386536a edited this template, adding "Let me finish the article I am working on it now Dori Landi is a Royal bloodline that goes back to the Empire of Rome 1st century Landi house of has a two thousand year history 700 hundred years of Princes of the Holy Roman Empire". Any instances of that template that were subst-ed in the past 17 hours now have that message. Is there any way to fix this? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 17:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I found two instances, using a Google search. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem will remove when I get home later036386536a (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks

It wasn't too bad; I found about 18 or so. In the future you can use the Wikipedia search engine. Just copy and paste the phrase, select everything for the search field, and then you've got your results. Mike V • Talk 19:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhargavaflame topic ban breach

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.

---

Bhargavaflame (talk · contribs) has been displaying very tendentious behaviour at Talk:Bhargava. After being given a lot of rope, EdJohnston imposed a topic ban from the subject area under the discretionary sanctions provisions. Bhargavaflame has continued to pursue their agenda, most recently with this comment. Aside from discussion on the article talk page and at their own talk page, there has been discussion elsewhere, eg: here.

Would someone care to review and perhaps enforce the ban with a block? - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Euryalus beat me to it. Nisus (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would you, then, Nisus, refuse to share your enterprise with me? And shall I let you go into such danger alone? -- Euryalus (talk) 19:41, 11 December 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:Onlylove18 not heeding warnings

Onlylove18 doesn't seem to be improving their behavior in response to the many warnings on their Talk page, and may need some alternative way to get their attention. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it could be one of those people who never look at their talkpage or even who don't know that they have one. Thanks for your alert, BarrelProof. I have given the user a final warning. If I have to use a block to get their attention, so be it. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC).

Wow, not a single talk or user talk edit so far. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been several days since they edited at all, so there's a risk this gets archived and then they quietly start again. (And a real risk that I forget all about having warned them..) If you should see them upload a non-free image again and you aren't an admin yourself, please kindly alert an admin, such as me. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC).

Outing attempt?

I think this [113] is an WP:OUTING attempt? I've never dealt with anything like this before but it appears this is an attempt at harassment. Not sure of the next steps but would appreciate assistance. Champaign Supernova (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• It kind of looks like it and I've left a somewhat lengthy warning about why this is not kosher and what the appropriate measure would be if they think that you have a conflict of interest. Posting your potential real name and an insult is not the correct way to address COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I responded on my Talk page. There was no COI accusation or implication made, no insult made, and no outing made. You are of course free to imagine whatever you like. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You called the user by a given name. What's your source for that given name? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That's not an accurate report by 71.23.178.214. How is this [114], in reference to this [115] not a COI implication? That's exactly what an implication is. And how is calling me "totally delusional" [116] not an insult? As I've said before, if you want to accuse me of COI, please do so formally on the appropriate noticeboard. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • FYI, more odd accusations/comments from 71.23.178.214. [117] Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I was willing to give this IP the benefit of the doubt (no offense meant by that, Champaign Supernova- I was mostly hoping to God this would be a case of "nobody on the Internet can hear your inflections"), but this looks to be exactly what CS is describing it as: one person being abusive for her not agreeing with her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible issues in Shooting of Michael Brown

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding continued hostility. Thank you. —Roches (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel has been very active on Shooting of Michael Brown, and has made some comments that are rather uncivil. Some comments regard deletion of content; this was done in the process of updating an article and adjusting the length of the section to fit better with the 'big picture' at this point in time. Some comments regard the policies on primary and secondary sources. (I don't think a neutral point of view is best served by requiring multiple secondary sources interpret a straightforward primary source, and I don't think it's appropriate to quote arbitrarily selected opinion pieces.)

I've tried to work on the article, and I did make some bold and entirely good-faith edits. Apparently this is being interpreted as a lack of understanding of the rules and a desire on my part to deliberately remove content. That's just not the case.

Sections involved:

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Shooting scene diagram

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Grand jury hearing section

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Wholesale deletion of relevant material

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Collaborating, OR, and inline attributions

There was also a comment on Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Source_bombing, which seems to be representative of the issues. Roches (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to attempt changing Wikipedia policies by engaging in a discussion such as this one. But you are not welcome to start editing articles in which you dismiss Wikipedia core policies and do whatever you want in contradiction with key policies. You are deleting well sourced material. You are also deleting key reporting, just because you believe journalists got it wrong. This is totally unacceptable and disruptive. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

None of the quotes are disputes I'm involved in Really? As for your arguments about using primary sources instead of secondary sources, it is exactly the opposite of what we do here in Wikipedia. You have a lot to learn. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No matter what I say on the talk page, I keep getting replies that are worded as if I'm completely ignorant of all of the policies.

Roches (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Roches, at least twice you have said something very ambiguous and then became insulted because multiple editors misinterpreted your ambiguous words. You also implied that we were idiots because we failed to read your mind. I'll admit to being a bit "short"—far from "hostile"—but I'll also maintain that that's a natural human reaction to the circumstances. I certainly wouldn't be caught wasting admin time with something like this, a petty squabble. I know from experience with this article and this group of people that we will work with you, but you should expect to lose some battles. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You keep getting responses that are worded as if you are ignorant of the policies, because the things you say completely contradict very well known policies. There are editors all over the spectrum of POV on this article. Cwobeel and I in particular I think come at most topics from a completely different angle. When everyone agrees that you are not following policy, thats a good sign that you are in fact not following policy. You HAVE deleted well sourced consensus-built material multiple times, you HAVE made repeated OR with statements such as "Objective facts from a primary source are not original research, and synthesis of objective facts when only one conclusion is possible is not speculation" when clearly there is quite a significant amount of analysis going on and there are easily identifiable "other conclusions". You continue to compound these errors with your most recent justification for WP:PRIMARY WP:OR being "An example would be the autopsy report, which is the work of a medical professional and makes all of the appropriate conclusions (and none of the inappropriate ones), as opposed to an article about the autopsy" which clearly indicates your analysis disagrees with secondary analysis which is completely prohibited by policy. You are very close to needing to be sanctioned either under WP:CIR or WP:TROLL, I can't tell for sure which one applies. Remember, when the WP:BOOMERANG hits you, you chose to bring this to ANI, not us. We were trying to work with you on the article talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm definitely concerned about the article in general, not sure about the dispute. Most if not all of the pro-Wilson arguments are heavily disputed in text. Much of this article presents Pro-Brown arguments without counter point despite many arguments about inconsistencies existing: [118][119][120][121][122]. There is some serious POV pushing going on in this article. The lead is especially troubling in which it gives a single line saying that the grand jury cleared Wilson and then three sentences critical of the ruling. In what world does a grand jury hold such little weight? In every part of the article, attempts are made to discredit Wilson and the grand jury and present a pro-Brown point of view uncontested. I'm sorry, but there is some serious misbehavior at this article.--v/r - TP 22:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the grand jury, and, in particular, the prosecutor's actions, has been all over mainstream media. In contrast, far less in his defense. If someone adds something from a reliable source in his defense that we've missed, we don't remove it (subject to WP:DUE of course). Neutrality doesn't mean a 50-50 split, it means proportional to the sources. If anyone feels the balance is wrong, they are more than welcome to help improve that in a collaborative, not combative, manner. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

50-50 is one thing. The witness statements currently stand at 100-0. I just showed you five sources from the front page of a Google search about witness inconsistencies. Right now, you're not showing any attempt at balance, let along balance of the sources. Go through each witness statement, do you see any criticism of their consistency at all? Sorry, but your answer is far less than impressive and is the standard "my sources don't say any of that" mantra of a POV pusher. Not saying you are one, only saying that your reply is the kind of "I'm going to quote a policy instead of substantiate why the policy applies". I've substantiated. Sources exist, the witness section is completely barren of any criticism of the pro-Brown witnesses. I am referring to the exact same line of policy you are. I've demonstrated why I think it's being violated. Time for you or someone else to demonstrate why it's not. That's how discussion works. I don't need policies that I'm well aware of mindlessly quoted at me.

As it stands right now, the only combative attitude is the one quoting a policy at me without substantiating their argument based in that policy. And then calling me combative. Either dispute my claim or don't. But we're referring to the same exact line of policy and I'm arguing it's being violated.--v/r - TP 23:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Accounts section which the entire intro section is about those inconsistencies? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Despite that, there is still a paragraph and a sentence in Wilson's section critical of his comments.--v/r - TP 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. I did not call you combative, any more than you called me a POV pusher. As I said, you or anyone else is welcome to help improve the article, and that is not done at ANI. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"I don't need policies I'm well aware of [adverb] quoted at me" expresses my sentiments perfectly.

Generally, after having a policy quoted at me, I saw how something I said "clearly" shows that I don't understand the most basic points of policy. As was mentioned, as a scientist I'm used to working with primary sources, and I think I could use that experience to use primary sources in an article in a way that is consistent with policy. That could suggest a total and complete lack of understanding of basic policy. Rather than make that assumption on the talk page, it would have been better, I think, to let me try to do it in the article and then assess the results.

Another example is when I suggested the article was 'over-referenced.' That could be interpreted as if I'm saying I don't feel like including a bibliography in a term paper, or it could be interpreted as if I'm aware of when references are and are not required. It's sloppy and amateurish (yes, I'll say that) to cite seven sources for a sentence that says nothing more than "there were contradictions in witness testimony."

TParis, the "Wholesale deletion" section arose after I edited one of the witness accounts, "Construction worker". The account is wrong about the number of police officers that chased Brown, but I revised the section carefully trying to avoid stating the obvious fact that none of it really happened. The revision wasn't perfect, the response on the talk page was that I had disrespectfully destroyed the efforts of others. Rather than following BRD, what I got was a warning to follow BRD myself.

I do hope this isn't seen as a waste of time, because this is (or was) a high-traffic article, and it simply could have been much better done. Especially with respect to neutrality. The secondary sources in this case were extraordinarily biased on both sides. There was a chance for the Wikipedia article to present the facts objectively, but not if someone insists on making the article into a collection of quotations from various extremely biased sources. I was told at one point that "our job was to report what sources say" (possibly paraphrased). I don't see "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of quotations from mainstream journalists" or "Wikipedia is not a game about quoting and following the policies of Wikipedia" anywhere in policy, but my interpretation of and WP:5P seems to suggest that what it is is an objective and neutral source of information about everything. And also that the intent is to have people read and understand the results.

Again, I hope this isn't wasting time; that last paragraph especially seems soapbox-like, but I think it pertains to this article, especially if, as someone hinted, some of these editors work on news-related articles regularly. I was told in one of the replies that I have a lot to learn, which is true, but that is true of everyone. Roches (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: Roches removed two comments when he posted this: a comment from me, and a comment from NE Ent. I assume it was accidental, but it's not always easy to tell. I'm too lazy to repost my comment, but I basically said that an uninvolved, non-U.S. admin should babysit the article for a while, especially if removing talk page comments is a common occurrence. I'm not saying that it is, because I don't know if it is. I also think Roches needs to listen to consensus and observe our policy on original research. This whole post seems like a "policy doesn't apply to me, because I know THE TRUTH". If it keeps going in this direction, then, yes, I foresee a boomerang. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As someone who lives in the area in question and knows the staggering amount of detail in the local press about this topic, I tend to agree with TParis above that there seems to be to be a bit more (understandable) attention paid to the comments and opinions of some involved and uninvolved individuals than to those of some others. And, honestly, given the riots and other factors, I can see that there would be - it helps explain the riots. Having said that, I also agree with the Ninja above that it would help dramatically if an admin who is clearly not involved or exposed to the torrents of media coverage that have existed in the US about this topic were to help manage it in the short term. I know I, as a non-admin and a party who has unavoidably formed opinions on the topic given the amount of coverage I've seen, would not be competent to do that myself, but I would greatly welcome any admin or editor who hasn't seen the torrents of press to involve himself to help make the article in general more clearly neutral and informative to those who haven't already seen all the coverage elsewhere. That is in no way a criticism of anyone who has worked on the article, just an acknowledgment that, to my eyes, data overload could not unreasonably be an unwanted factor in forming the opinions of some editors who know the topic very well in their determination of what to include and to what weight. John Carter (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I just saw now that two comments were deleted by one of my messages. This was entirely accidental and I'm sorry it happened. I was working on a netbook where palm contact on the touchpad is sometimes interpreted as a click. To my knowledge it hasn't happened before and it won't happen again. In the future I'll check "show changes" as well as the regular preview.

About primary sources, I haven't found anything that can be included without OR. I'm not thinking that I can do the opposite of policy. But I can't demonstrate that, so I'll avoid making any further suggestions about it.

John Carter, I didn't know much about this case until I got involved in the article first after the Ferguson Market "strong-arm robbery" footage was released and then again after the grand jury decision. That probably explains why my opinion was so inflammatory to editors who had been working on the story since the beginning. Roches (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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.

---

Well, I've just been called an idiot by an editor I don't know and have never addressed or interacted with in any way on my own talk page, here. Users User:AlexTiefling and User:Sceptre have seen fit to tell people at ITN/C to "Fuck Off" for their same oppositions of a nomination at that page, myself not being the only party who opposes the nomination. User:AlexTiefling sees fit to tell people who explain the report in question is less than 1/20th of a document written by an outgoing party who were in the majority when the actions, already publicly known, were taken, should themselves expect to be blocked if complaint is made about his own incivility. Where are the warnings and summary blocks for such behavior? We've already had one user User:WaltCip strike his own comments in disgust. I've notified others attacked for brining up the purely partisan release of partial information. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Does any policy stand above POV now? Please block editors who find it appropriate to issue personal attacks and utter obscenities. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to fuck off for opposing the nomination, I told you to fuck off for making excuses for torture (in particular, of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad), and frankly, apologists for torture should fuck off. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

So, apparently we've also got a sockpuppuet telling people to fuck off? I'll assume this Londoner IP 82 is the erstwhile Sceptre, since Alex Tiefling usually signs his own name. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sceptre appears to be upset by this very disturbing news, and justifiably so. Medeis, I recommend ignoring the bad words and just don't respond. No response is needed. Sceptre, the item has been posted for the world to see. Rather than arguing here you can do more good by improving the target article or by doing whatever else you like to do. Arguing here is unnecessary. Jehochman ^Talk 03:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)}}

I have removed your closure. [By Jehochman, which he has restored.] Having an admin who posted an item also close an ANI on the same item is an obvious conflict of interest, and it is very interesting to me that this same admin does not respond to emails or civil requests for comment, and is involved in reversing decisions in other issues in which I have been involved.

Note the following:

Sceptre: "fuck you"

Alex Tiefling: "*Support per Sceptre. Fuck any claims of partisanship."

while WaltCip withdraws his vote with the comment "Oh forget it. If this is where ITN is going - yelling "fuck you" to people with a different !vote - then this is a procedure I want no part of."

Note that besides WC and myself questioning the partisan nature of the release, Drangon's Flight, Abductive and others were also doing so. I request we here about this apparent endorsement of telling people 'fuck you from uninvolved admins who did not vote, post, or comment on the ITN discussion or warn editors not to complain, or face repercussions. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You have made a bizarre interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. You aren't disputing how I closed the discussion, you are claiming that you were personally attacked in a discussion that that I closed, by other editors, not by me. I have no involvement in the personal attacks. Any such attacks are now stale and un-blockable, and in any case, no blocks were required for what happened, because they would have just intensified the silly dispute. You don't get to cherry pick an admin who has no knowledge of the dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 20:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not about to argue with you, Jehochman. What I'd like to know is, given User:HiLo48 was just banned for a month for the exact same words, why is this issue, personally attacking other whether I am involved or not okay, and where should it be taken otherwise. As for the fact that you have recently commented against me on various talk pages and are the one who posted this item to ITN while a complaint was active on the behavior of certain editors, I don't think you were uninvolved and should have closed it. Thanks for not doing so again. Please advise me if there's some other board egregious obscenity complaints shoud be taken. As for the politics or POV, it has nothing to do with justifying incivility. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 was telling everybody he disagrees with to fuck off for years now, and even developed a philosophical theory that it is good for Wikipedia to tall others to fuck off. He was proud of that and showed no intention of stopping. The block is long overdue. If Sceptre develops a bad habit of telling everybody to fuck off every day, I am sure they will be indefinitely blocked a month from now.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Good. I wasn't responsible for that block/ban and don't know what other facts were involved. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the point that occasional fuck you's are to be tolerated? Sceptre didn't say that above, he said the Fuck You was justified on a POV basis. Is that the case now, POV justifies personal attacks? μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, please strike my quote from these proceedings. I don't want any part of ITN or ANI drama, regardless of whether or not I'm a tangentially involved party. If I want someone to defend me, I'll do it myself.--WaltCip (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who quoted you, so if anyone wants to direct any malice over it they can do so towards me. But unless the comment is revdeleted, it remains very pertinent.

We've got user Hilo48 blocked for 30 days for saying "fuck you", we've got user Jehochman closing this discussion after posting the issue at hand, and then accidently moving his hat to cover my newest comments, after inviting me to comment further, we've got involved admins taking hostile positions in various fora, then acting as if they are uninvolved here. All this evidence needs retaining, but do place the blame/credit on me for retaining it. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, we've tried to explain to you that Hilo48 has a long history of inappropriate behaviour and has been justifiably sanctioned - please don't use strawman arguments. Also, please try to avoid telling admins how to run their noticeboard when their closures are perfectly in order. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

You seem to be horribly mistaken, Kudpung. This is not "your (i.e. admins') page" but, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors."

If we have Involved admins acting with a conflict of interest, and experienced admins telling their opposition, "fuck you", we have we have matters requiring the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

Once again, the diffs of users being told to fuck off have been closed. Why is no action, not even a final warning of WP:CIVIL taken by an uninvolved admin? μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that a dozen admins have looked at the case and yet each has chosen not to issue a block or warning. What possible explanation could there be? Hmmm, I wonder if they are intelligent people who have looked at the underlying issue and observed that the "fuck off" was reasonable under the circumstances? Here's a shocking thought—what if TRM is right and you really are the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I think it's perfectly reasonable to tell someone to fuck off when they make excuses for what is, at best, serious sexual assault, and at worst, a severe violation of the Geneva Conventions. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that Medeis has declined to notify me of the two unilateral re-openings of this preposterous case. For what it's worth, I did not tell anyone to fuck off. Wikipedia is still not censored, and I'll say 'fuck' where I like, provided it's not disruptive or a personal attack. To which point, Medeis might also wish to consider the difference between vulgar abuse and defamation. To bring two users to ANI three times in 24 hours over the use of profanities during a discussion of state-sponsored torture and rape is a failure of Medeis' sense of proportion which I am unable to account for. I have long maintained that Medeis is a disruptive and unhelpful user. ANI has been an ineffective tool for controlling their unhelpfulness. Perhaps, at least, Medeis can now learn what it's like for ANI to fail to deliver. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sceptre, you should be ashamed of yourself. This is Wikipedia: we must remain civil. It's kindly fuck off. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I do not recognise Medeis' characterisation of my behaviour in the original complaint, and no diff has been provided to substantiate it. (Sorry for not mentioning it earlier; this whole business is so ridiculous that I forgot to respond to the original accusation.) AlexTiefling (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Motion to temp block Medeis for disrupting the ANI process.--WaltCip (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The comment, and many others on that page, are inappropriate. The top of the ITN page clearly says " Please do not... ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." Ideally a wiki-scapel would be taken to that page, because all that should be important is determining consensus on how secondary sources describe the report, not any editor's personal of anything. NE Ent 00:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible promo BLPs on related persons by 3 stale SPAs .... AFD? or something else?

Just checking before AFDing two BLPs on Paul Mendelson and Zoe Mendelson. (disambig. note - the subject is a theatre/TV playwright, but is not the casino and cards author of the same name and same location who also writes for theatre/TV!).

The article on Paul Mendelson felt like it included a lot of attempt to "build up" the BLP, but not a lot of real basis for notability, and not a lot of independent RS coverage to support notability. (It states there was a BAFTA nomination and TV award on two shows, but nothing more: no idea if that suggests a TV writer is probably notable). Overall the article felt as if it was more about "padding" making up for missing substance. I was wondering whether to PROD it, but noticed oddities about its creator, history, and connected article.

• Excluding bots, the actual content of Paul Mendelson was added by two accounts: User:Thermoman47 and User:Mrsryken.
• Thermoman47 edited on one day, Aug 8, 2009, creating the Paul Mendelson article, and adding a note on the same person in another article, and nothing else. The user hasn't edited since.
• Mrsryken edited from July 22 - Aug 2 and Aug 25, 2009, adding content to our articles on Paul Mendelson and his daughter Zoe Mendelson, then reappeared for one day in April 2011 to blank a section in the Zoe Mendelson article. Like Thermoman47, the user hasn't edited since and didn't edit anything other than on the Mendelsons. The content additions were mostly around the same time as the first account was writing.
• So I checked the history of our article on Zoe Mendelson. It too was mostly written by one individual, User:Artistresearcher. The account was used to write our article on Zoe Mendelson, on April 15, 2009, and nothing else. The subject of the article seems to be a fairly run of the mill artist, with some solo exhibitions whose importance isn't clear to me, and a couple of quotes of the kind written to accompany an exhibition of these kinds.

Overall, there were 3 accounts that did nothing but write, in a somewhat promo/padded style, on this father + daughter, at around the same time (in two patches in 2009, April and July-August) and then none of the three accounts ever seemed to edit again except one that appeared 18 months later to blank an old section listing the subject's exhibitions.

I can't judge the importance of the actual claims to notability myself, but there could be a doubt, and the circumstances of writing are a bit of a concern. On the other hand if they are by consensus notable then any original intent wouldn't matter. The accounts have been stale for several years and not 'replaced' by other accounts, so there aren't any current conduct queries. So I'm sanity checking before going ahead, on the best way to proceed. Separate AFDs on the 2 articles, and treat the circumstances above as a red herring? Quick check in case I've overlooked anything. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's how I would handle it: get the job done with least work by myself and others while being kind to newcomers who don't understand our rules. It sounds like these aren't blatant advertising, so speedy probably won't work. I would try prod and if nobody is watching them, they will be deleted or if somebody objects they just convert to AfD. As for the stale accounts, they aren't worth the trouble of further investigation. I would leave them welcome templates and messages about the prods as this serves to notify them and conveniently makes their editing history more visible should they later return. Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP

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

---

I don't usually bring things to AN/I, but this really offended me. I had a small content dispute on Ryukyuan people with an IP (153.173.114.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who removed something they believed to be untrue, and after I reverted them and added references to said disputed content, the IP left a long message for me on my talk page. It's uncivil at best. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You never warned the IP. If IP had continued even after the warning then only it could be actionable. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hardly, Bladesmulti. Calling an editor "a brutish animal without intelligence, closer to the neanderthal than to the homo sapiens", belonging to "the most retarded people on earth" (=Americans) (and falsely calling them a Wikipedia administrator, too!), and you think there must be a warning before they can be blocked for personal attacks? Well, you're wrong. Blocked for 31 hours. Thanks for the alert, Sturmgewehr88. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 12 December 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:Jenakarthik's copyvios

User:Jenakarthik is inactive since 2011 (3 edits in 2013). However, some of his articles created in 2009 still suffer from copyvio and/or close paraphrasing. Examples I tagged: Ilayankudi maranar, Iyarpagaiar, Meiporul Nayanar, Viralminda Nayanar, Amaraneedi Nayanar, Sadaiya Nayanar, Isaignaniyaar, Pugazh Thunai Nayanar, Nesa Nayanar. The copyvio and close paraphrasing remains as these articles have had only minor edits since creation. I wanted to check if his/her other creations but "Pages Created" from Tool Labs is dead so could not check. Can some admin please provide a link for a tool that does this job OR at least give me a list of pages created (by using your admin tools, Don't if this is possible). Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, all you have to do is to go to Special:contributions/Jenakarthik and click "Only show edits that are page creations". You can also only look at article namespace creations if you want. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This tool lists all major edits. MER-C 13:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive user Cydevil38

Cydevil38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term disruptive user whose main activity is nationalist POV-pushing and edit-warring. He has been brought to ANI and other forums at least six times by five different editors before, an astonishing record for someone with only about 1000 article edits, but somehow has always managed to evade sanction because of admin inaction:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive46#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Komdori (Result:), May 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#User:Cydevil38 disruption, reported by Assault11, May 2007
• WP:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) (creating a POV fork), reported by Jiejunkong, August 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD, reported by Benlisquare, October 2011, with evidence of virulently racist off-wiki comments
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time, reported by Benlisquare, December 2012, with support from several other editors
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive264#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: ), November 2014

In addition, there are many other incidents not reported to ANI, including:

• Long term edit-warring (at least 30 reverts) against multiple users on Template:History of Korea, pushing the nationalistic fringe theory that Dangun is historical and Gojoseon was founded in 2333 BC, even after overwhelming evidence of academic consensus to the contrary was provided on the talk page. [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128], and many more
• Removal of sourced content on Mid-Autumn Festival [129], [130], [131], the last revert by an obvious IP sock
• Inappropriate canvassing [132] [133] (not included in Benlisquare's complaint above)

Most recently, Cold Season filed a complaint on the 3RR noticeboard after Cydevil38 repeatedly deleted content from Gojoseon, claiming it was "North Korean fringe view" even though it was sourced to a book by a well-known University of London professor. His disruptive behaviour was verified by myself, as well as the uninvolved user Legacypac [134]. (I also posted much of the above evidence to Cold Season's 3RR complaint and requested a topic ban, but was told 3RR was the wrong venue.)

Despite the overwhelming evidence and confirmation from multiple users, Cold Season's complaint, like many others before his, was not acted upon by administrators and became archived on December 3. Unsurprisingly, Cydevil38 almost immediately resumed his edit warring [135] [136] [137], and using an obvious IP sock 121.161.79.35 [138], after Cold Season warned him of 3RR again. The IP is closely related to 121.161.79.120 used earlier to revert RGloucester [139] on Mid-Autumn Festival.

At the end of Benlisquare's ANI complaint two years ago, another user presciently remarked: "if this ANI thread dies without any activity - he'll continue his disruptive behavior of nationalist edit-warring, blanking, and defacement of articles." And that is exactly what is happening. Cydevil38's disruptive behaviour has gone on for way too long, and I request, yet again, that this user be topic-banned from Korea-related topics. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I concur that as an uninvolved editor I looked at the situation when I saw the most recent 3RR complaint and found that Cydevil38's behavior was edit warring and completely unjustified by the presented sources. I have no idea what his point is continually reverting 2000 year old history. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (INVOLVED). That was the first time that I've substantially came in contact with said user but I've seen it before, I found that the user was very Korea-centric/nationalistic in his or her views and it reflects the user's editorial behavioral to such an extend that is disruptive and impossible to work with. The user is certainly stretching what's acceptable behavior: The user will seek every unjustifiable mechanism to impose said user's own will, including edit war until reported to switch over to some other method and blatantly use ducks [140] (unilateral edits and suddenly an IP pops up doing the same edit, right after a second 3RR warning, and a very close timestamp to Cydevil38 [141]) to further his views at the Gojoseon article. The user was also canvassing at Wikiproject Korea (See: Talk:Gojoseon#RFC on founding legends), while the user should know by now that this is unacceptable (especially considering the user was taken to ANI over it in the past... as shown above), which is an indication of the unchangeable nature of this unacceptable behavior. The user Cydevil38 is a disruptive presence to editors that dare touch Korea-related articles that does not meet his or her own views, even ignoring secondary sources or consensus. --Cold Season (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• First and foremost, I'm very appalled and angered at what Zanhe calls "evidence of virulently racist off-wiki comments". I have clarified in that ANI that I have nothing to do with those comments. I never visited the website, and never made any comments there. It was obviously the work of some other person trying to framing me of being a racist bigot. Also, Zanhe's derogation of my contributions to Wikipedia, that I have only "1000" mainspace edits(plus 126 in templates), where as I have more than 650 edits in talks(224 in template talks), only attests to my efforts to dispute resolution. I have dedicated myself to articles on Korean prehistory, history and culture, which often brings me into conflict with Chinese editors, who have conflicting POV with Korean editors, and often so against NPOV. Reflecting this, most of the ANI notices come from topics of controversy between Korea and China, such as Goguryeo. Most articles concerning the ANI notices were eventually resolved through dispute resolution protocols, with two of accusers eventually being decided by consensus for being disruptive editors by WP:RFCU for anti-consensus editing, racist behavior and personal attacks. Zanhe's "prescient editor" who "warned that my disruptive behavior would continue" is himself a very POV editor who attempted to rename Goguryeo's capital, Pyongyang, into "Piarna"[142], a Japopnic-language reconstruction that is rejected by most scholars in the field. I'd also like to refer to to this page[143], where he and one of my previous ANI accusers were deeply involved in an anti-Korea article that compared Koreans to the Nazis and prompted much anger and made even discussing it repulsive. I strongly suggest that administrators and editors take a look at the ANI, the articles in question and the contentions before making comments to avoid Zanhe's fervent accusations of my disruptive eidting. Zanhe's accusation that I "edit-warred" in Template:History of Korea with multiple users actually involved a sock-puppeteer using four accounts and Zanhe. I've actually made some concessions there in my efforts to resolve the dispute, but Zanhe continued to edit-war until I presented firm evidence of scholarly consensus, based on "official handbook" sources that reflect scholarly consensus. The accusations of WP:CANVASSING comes from alerting WP:Korea in articles that are about Korea. I'd like to also point out that either Zanhe or Cold Season added WP:China project to Gojoseon simply to alert the project page there. My issue with Mid-Autumn Festival was that concerning a hard-earned consensus that has been standing for quite a while[144], and which of which the arguments made there I believe stands.

As with the recent dispute over Gojoseon, I'd like to mention that this is yet another contention topic between Korea and China, particularly concerning the Gija theory. I've already presented evidence that Cold Season's one and only source, which Zanhe calls "a book by a well-known University of London professor", was heavily distorted by Cold Season. Please also consider the rest of the article, which already addresses Gija[145], making Cold Season's edit simply repetitive and ignoring the stable structure of the article that was already in place. With regards to the Gija theory, the book basically says that most scholars either evaluate it as "a Chinese fabrication that has nothing to with Gojoseon" or simply just ignores Gija regarding the foudning of Gojoseon. I have cordially asked Legacypac here to reconsidered the detailed evidence I have given, but dishearteningly he simply chose to ignore it and comment here that I was reverting "2000 year history". Also, Zanhe's accusation of my subsequent reverts after ANI:3RR are actually myself adding the NPOV tag to the concerned section, which Cold Season and Zanhe accused of being a continuation of edit-warring. The exception is one edit which I made on the basis of WP:Consensus, that "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."[146] I made the revert concerning WP:Consensus AFTER they reverted my NPOV tag edits, which again, Zanhe distorts the evidence by showing as if I made the WP:Consensus edit first. I'd also like to state that my previous reverts were also based WP:Consensus, in response to Cold Season's very bold edit. The "IP socks" are edits that I made when I forgot to log-in. These are honest mistakes.

This ANI comes at a time when a dispute resolution process is in place. I consider this ANI a disruptive attempt to ignore dispute resolution and attempt to "topic ban" a user that goes against their POV. What I believe is that Cold Season seriously distorted the source at question, and I don't think the "uninvolved" editor Legacypac here haven't gone thoroughly with the source before he made his comment, which is made apparent in his comment that my view is "completely unjustified by the presented sources" when only one source was presented. I again point out that Legacypac ignored my request to consider my detailed presentation of what the source actually says, which he didn't address and ignored and went on to accuse me of disruptive behavior. What this Gojoseon article needs right now is more attention from other editors, not only neutral editors, but also editors with in-depth knowledge of the topic at hand, which is why I alerted WP:Korea. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) Regarding the misrepresentation of sources by me, this is untruthful because I literally wrote in the format: "[Small summary of ALL the legends]. [Scholars' name] stated that [Scholars' analysis]" [147] (and the book is freely on Google Books to check). Three people are in agreement that it is correct, but only you unilaterally oppose it as it does not meet your view. (2) Regarding your ducking, you had all the time to disclose that but you did not. It also happens that it occurred after a 3RR warning, which is really a coincidence. (3) Your claim that the article Gojoseon was stable is false, because most of the article's talk page comprises of discussions about how the former "Founding legend" sub-section was a misrepresentation. Do not confuse stability with inaction. (4) You adding a NPOV is another mechanism to edit war and make it harder for those that edit thing which is not in your POV (even though it meets sources). Just like how ducking is another mechanism. Also, your partly revert [148] is also applicable to 3RR (strangely enough after an IP from the same region as the one you used to duck with) (5) Wikiproject China applies to to the article Gojoseon, since it covers territory that's within modern China and the most-contemporaneous primary sources are derived from Chinese historiography. If you can't recognize that and are against opinions from said wikiproject, than I have no words. Also, Wikiproject China had been part of the article before you began canvassing and since 2008 (as explained on the RFC on the article talkpage). You also did not notify all the other wikiprojects while canvassing on wikiproject Korea. (6) Regarding you ending statement... I find this statement most worrying. No, all the articles ALWAYS NEEDS NEUTRAL EDITORS. You were taken to ANI for canvassing in the past; you did it again rather than improve on this editorial behavior. You were well aware that this was an issue. --Cold Season (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have provided thorough evidence that Cold Season distorted the literature here[149]. The general structure of Gojoseon was formed in 2005[150], and eventually State-formation, Gija and its controversy, Wiman Joseon and its fall were divided into subsections, along with the addition of archaeological basis of Gojoseon. Again, your interpretation of the source is distorted, and it is repetitive given that they are all covered in the previous stable version as different periods in Gojoseon's history. Also, I don't think adding a NPOV tag, which alerts readers that the section you wrote is currently under dispute, is a continuation of edit warring. And as for WP:China, Goguryeo, another contentious topic between Korea and China, is not under the purview of WP:China. Both are firmly within Korean historiography, and not considered Chinese by the virtue of present-day borders. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the issues at the article Gojoseon... (1) Your "thorough evidence" has been rejected by three people. I request the admin who will take this case to carefully view the article version diff (the relevant section is under "Founding legend") and source as stated in the opening message of the Gojoseon RFC; this will show Cydevil38's POV. I find it pointless to argue this further against a POV pusher. (2) The general article structure stated "Founding legend" as the sub-header (this can be seen in the article history), the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth, Weiman/Wiman myth, and the Tangun/Dangun myth are all founding legends. In fact and ironically, you just changed that structure to give precedence to the Tangun/Dangun myth in your Korea-centric views. (3) Regarding your statement about the Wikiprojects... I know you would say something like that to exemplify how tremendous your Korea-centric POV is. What matters is the scholarly view as reflected in sources; not Korea-centric nor China. Yet, you keep on hammering your Korea-centric POV. You canvassed at Wikiproject Korea, while there are four other Wikiprojects that you didn't notify. And I note... four... not only Wikiproject China, which seems to be your sole opposing focus for some reason in this issue of you canvassing. (4) Also, you are trying to erase/downplay all the other myths, while trying to prop up the Dangun/Tangun myth. In fact, you even removed the cited info stating that there were three founding myths [151] while falsely claiming that you were just "merging" the info. (5) I see that you also decided to go ahead and insert your Korea-centric views, disregarding the ongoing RFC. (6) I find it quite astounding how you call Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth as a fabrication, but you seem to be unwilling to apply the same to the Dangun/Tangun myth (which tells that Dangun was the offspring of a bear and a deity), even falsely and Korean-centrically calling it "widely accepted" [152]. Actually, even I wrote that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth had been rejected [153] into the article, so what are you arguing about? Probably the fact that scholars also rejects the Dangun/Tangun myth [154], but you don't like that as you view it as "widely accepted". Scholarly sources state that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth and Dangun/Tangun myth are historically invalid; they are legends. You refuse to grasp that with this Korea-centric tunnel vision. --Cold Season (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• An important piece of evidence: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collision787/Archive. This shows that Cydevil38 editorial opponents have included a number of sock puppets, so any reports of Cydevil38 reverting against consensus may be overstated. I think this conflict may need deeper investigation that what's going to be possible here on WP:AN/I. Already the evidence, encompassing 7 years of editing, is longer than the attention span of the average editor here. If you wish to pursue this dispute, please try Requests for arbitration, or else limit your complaints to specific instances of edit warring, and use WP:AN/3RR. I'll leave this discussion open in case somebody wants to make a precise (short!) case for some sort of administrative action. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that there were sockpuppets muddying the water, but none of the evidence I presented above involve any sockpuppet (except the IP socks of Cydevil38). Besides, the sockpuppets were only active on Template:History of Korea, not on other pages such as Gojoseon, where Cydevil38 is edit warring against the judgment of three experienced users as well as academic sources.
• If seven years of evidence is too much to digest, let's only look at the most recent incidents. The December 2012 ANI was filed by Benlisquare, a long-time editor with 40,000+ edits, and confirmed by Shrigley and the administrator Heimstern. And the recent 3RR complaint was filed by Cold Season, and confirmed by myself and previously uninvolved Legacypac, all long-term editors in good standing. Arbitration is for cases which the community cannot solve, but this case is about a single user who habitually ignores consensus and refuses to stop edit warring.
• I'm perplexed by your suggestion to use WP:AN/3RR, while retroactively closing Cold Season's archived 3RR complaint, citing this ANI thread. I filed this complaint AFTER the 3RR report was archived without administrator attention. This sounds like a Catch-22 to me, or are you suggesting that a new 3RR complaint be filed?

-Zanhe (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This ANI[155] was about an attempt to blank and remove Northeast Project, an article split from Goguryeo covering the Chinese government project that laid claims on ancient Korean kingdoms such as Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Balhae were part of the Chinese empire. There was another split from Northeast Project, Goguryeo controversies. After some time, editors at Goguryeo Controversies attempted to remove Northeast Project. As for the editors involved in that ANI, Benlisquare and Shrigley, please consult this page[[156]], where they adamantly supported KEEP of a page that compared Koreans to Nazis, and of course, prompted emotional outbursts of anger and simply made making edits to the article repulsive for other editors. Also please consider this this edit[[157]] at Goguryeo, attesting to extremely biased editing. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the Northeast Project dispute, but the ANI was about your canvassing activity, which was confirmed by an administrator, not about the content dispute itself. -Zanhe (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the Northeast Project dispute. It appears that three users agreed that the article should be merged into Goguryeo controversies. Cydevil38 was the lone dissenter (along with yet another IP sock), see article talk page. He then canvassed on WP Korea for support, and Benlisquare filed the ANI complaint in response. Administrator Heimstern confirmed the inappropriate canvassing, but did not take any action against Cydevil38. This pattern of events is by now all too familiar. -Zanhe (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Update - after reading some old threads, I found out that Cydevil38 was previously known as Cydevil, who was blocked by the administrator Nlu for edit warring in 2007. He then claimed that he lost his password and created the Cydevil38 account. See block log. Cydevil38 was subsequently reported to ANI and other forums three times in 2007 alone. -Zanhe (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In the last couple of days, Cydevil38 seems to have changed his ways and started to engage in more cooperative editing on Gojoseon and Template:History of Korea. Although still POV-y in parts, his recent edits are a vast improvement from the knee-jerk reverts which constituted the majority of his article edits in the past years. I'm cautiously optimistic that he has finally come to the realization that Wikipedia should reflect neutral scholarly opinions, not nationalist propaganda. As such, I'd like to withdraw my request to have him topic-banned, but reserve the right to refile the complaint if he resumes edit warring. -Zanhe (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reject Zanhe's "Complaint withdrawn"

I reject Zanhe's claims that I have "changed" my long-term behavior due to this ANI accusation. My edits to Gojoseon was a delayed response due to my lack of time, and Zanhe and Cold Season have violated WP:Consensus in imposing their distorted POV, while Legacypac, an involved neutral editor, did not consider the topic at hand with much thought before he made his claim. My compromise at Template:History of Korea came with the suggestion of a constructive and neutral editor, and myself being tired of Zanhe's disruptive edit-warring. This is a pattern of long-term behavior on my part to resolve dispute resolutions. As I have stated in my first response to this ANI, this ANI was a disruptive attempt by Zanhe to compromise the dispute resolution process. Now he threatens me that he will further threaten me with such attempts. I would like to see this ANI case open until judged by the administrators and experienced, neutral, editors. Otherwise, I will consider this ANI yet another disruptive attempt by a POV editor trying to disrupt dispute resolution through intimidation. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long. I was encouraged by Cydevil38's seeming change of behaviour and took the initiative to withdraw the complaint while reserving the right to refile in case the disruptive behaviour resumes. I also wrote a friendly response to him on another talkpage. Incredibly, Cydevil38 interprets all this as a "threat". In addition to the belligerent response above, he also left an angry diatribe on my talk page. I'm truly surprised by this turn of events, and concerned with Cydevil38's emotional stability. If he wants to reject my withdrawal of complaint, that's fine, let's keep the case open and wait for the judgment of administrators. -Zanhe (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You have basically wiped out a lot of the cited info for the other myths to give a undue great weight to the Dangun/Tangun myth, which is not reflective to the body of secondary literature that DEALS WITH ALL MYTHS and not strictly with the Dangun/Tangun myth, which you seemingly hold above all else (as it is quite clear that it is driven by some centric view of yours, which has permeated to too many Korea-related topics that you edit). Since I would be repeating what I stated in more detail (left unresponded at the moment), I'll just point to what I wrote above regarding the article Gojoseon. --Cold Season (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack in AfD discussion

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

---

Here I was called a WP:POINTy troll (although I have no idea what I was suppose to be being pointy about). I attempted to neutralize the personal attack which has no reasonable purpose for being in a deletion discussion about an article. That attempt was reverted by GraniteSand with an edit summary that verifies it was intended as a personal attack ... If you don't like my honest characterization then file a report. I warned the user on his talk page in an attempt to stop the attack there. which They acknowledged the warning as I was restoring the discussion page to a point where there were no personally attacking comments against an editor so the discussion could focus on the article with an edit summary of Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Feel free to file a report for my WP:RPA WP:TPO#Removing_harmful_posts fixes to your comment if you don't like it. Moments later, they again reverted to the version with the attack claiming It's my honest assessment of what is a speedy keep AfD and the justification for my position, not a personal attack. Don't modify it.

Now, I admit, I probably hung on to thinking I could convince this user that a comment that calls me a pointy troll is not appropriate to leave in a deletion discussion, and I should have probably come here a little sooner for feedback on an appropriate course of action forward, but I really wanted to try and exhaust all other methods of resolving this without coming here. It is now obvious to even me, that I am not going to sway this user to keeping the attack off the page, so here I am to discuss this and try and achieve a little consensus from a community which is mostly senior editors on if I should just let it go and deal with being called a pointy troll which was very much an WP:ABF comment on the other editors part or if I am justified in believing that such attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

One point to remember is that rude personal attacks never make the target look bad. They only make the person who said them look unreasonable, and quickly discredit any possibility of anyone listening to them. When you refactor a personal attack against yourself, what you're doing is excusing the person who made it, and covering up their real selves, making them look better. When I see people using personal attacks to win an argument, it is a signal that I can safely ignore them forever. --Jayron32 03:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well said. NE Ent 11:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have too much to add; my terribly misconstrued edit summaries pretty much sum up my position. I'm generally a civil guy but in any request for input (such as AfD) where I have to extrapolate on my position I always try to be clear and unambiguous. My position is not a personal attack and the refactoring of my comments was inappropriate. I'm offline soon but I'll check back i tomorrow. GraniteSand (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I participated in that discussion (now closed as snow keep) and perhaps read that comment differently. I saw an editor trying to theorise as to why another editor would nominate that article for deletion; his conclusions narrowed down to three options including something pointy, trolling or a misunderstanding. It didn't seem (to me) like an attempt to call the nominator a "pointy troll" which takes the first and second disparate options and combines them without regard for the third. In reality, the "right" option of the three would seem to be the third. The nominator refactored the comment to remove the first two options and leave the third, effectively accepting that the third was the case and saying not much more before the discussion was closed. It was a strange nomination for which there was absolutely no support. It struck GraniteSand as strange and he said as much. Best bet? Move on. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah when I saw the comment I read it pretty much exactly as Stalwart111 read it; GraniteSand was simply wondering out loud what the reasons could be for nominating an article which stood no chance of deletion (let's not forget, the article nominated for deletion was Cocaine; even thinking charitably you have to say it was a flawed nomination). I see no personal attack. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This does not require admin attention. Stating that someone's nomination of an article could be considered pointy or trolling is hardly a personal attack, especially in this case. Perhaps Granite could have phrased his words better. —Dark 03:05, 13 December 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 hatemonger on IPNA talkpage - Special:Contributions/71.127.135.196

Re Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Native_Warrior_Society_flag_theft-pic_re_the_Vancouver_Olympics_article @Montanabw: and I have enjoyed a visitation from an IP editor who.....other than having nothing constructive or in fact even relevant to the subject at hand to say, has engaged in some very nasty political/racist POV and attacking us both. Those who know my username know that I'm not fond of ANIs and dislike procedure but in this case "something must be done". Because of a consistent pattern, of sorts, by IP users of a certain "bent" like this, and the known fact that partisan internet-penetration campaigns are underway on various fronts by corporate and political-partisan organizations and contractors, that such IPs should be checked as to their origin. This isn't possible with the many WP:SPAs of this kind, but it is possible with IP users. Wikiscanner is no longer in operation, and interpretations of corporate-origin and government-origin contributions vary...but this is not a contribution, it's a volley of poisoned apples...if from a "tainted source", then consideration should be given to blocking the whole domain, not just that one IP. In viewing the pink section instructions above some of what is said could be construed as more-than-implied libel/defamation of either or the both of us; but it's just hate-spew and as noted has no place in Wikipedia. But very typical cant of a certain kind on native and environmental-related matters identifiable in its agenda and on behalf of whom such dissembling is being acted out; he claims to be native American, but anyone can say that....what else he says after that is:

• ... yet it has already been widely observed that it is always white homosexual activists in Canada who dominate all discussions of our welfare, and try to squelch out any of us speaking for themselves, automatically screaming "racism" because I used "toothless" as a synonym for their generally comical impotence and sword rattling. As if, being a homosexual. you are some kind of deity and tell everyone else what they may say or discuss.

• Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are we Montanabw?

• I can assure you the media deal to hype a toothless group of 37 people out of ten thousand is sealed *behind closed doors*, but they remain a toothless group of 37 people though dont they?
  • made indirectly about native people in reference to my example of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) being given headline/feature coverage as if they represented participants in a demonstration or a movement or whatever when they do not. Equating native people as "toothless" is commented upon by montanabw before the later edits above. Some elders are indeed toothless, but they're not comically impotent or sword rattling; anything but. As for being a white homosexual activist, that I've never published that if it makes him good to spew homophobic slanders to make himself feel more macho and righteous, that's his problem not mine; that he would castigate and emasculate white supporters of natives doesn't speak well to his own self-proclaimed native identity (which I find dubious, and falls in the "some of my best friends are black" category of disclaimer, like political trolls as at Talk:Adrian Dix who claimed to not be of a political party/faction but obviously were, in tone and also in the goals they had for that page; WP:DUCK etc. In this, perhaps it's a bit of the old "methinks he protests too much" but the sexual identity challenges he's facing are his own, not mine to comment further on.

• This is my reply to the IP user's most recent attacks/hate comments; I agree with montanabw that its best to ignore such tripe but given that's the WP:IPNA talkpage, his comments are all the more offensive. I'm tart in my responses, perhaps because he's such an easy mark to have his words turned back against him. And to "call bullshit" what it is.

Rare for me to ever say this, but having made this post I will leave this to the "wisdom of the adminship" to be dealt with; and again, I recommend the origin of this series of attack-posts be determined and a domain-block or something of the kind be considered if there are issues with that origin's nature/funding.

I wasn't sure which ANI board to take this to; NPOV or NPA; I'm unconcerned with his libels....and can't afford a lawyer anyway, nor am I inclined to engage further in his negative energy. As montanabw advises elsewhere "Just keep on editing".... yeah, true, but this guy needs shutting down. With a sledgehammer.Skookum1 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Skookum1 is correct that we have a racist anon IP troll over there. Needs someone with the mop. BTW, did someone alert Mr. Anon IP that this has been filed? Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • My bad, I doofed when looking where to put that template by going to the username and seeing only the contributions, forgot the IP users do have talkpages; just put {{subst:ANI-notice}} there now; I would have done it last night (it's 7:40 am here now) but we had a blackout at about 10 pm and I went to bed (3rd world country power supply...).Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP is hopping around, so I've semi-protected the talk page to prevent further disruption there. Let me know if it continues elsewhere, and I'll look into a range block. Dreadstar ☥ 22:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreadstar. We'll keep you posted! Montanabw^(talk) 03:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

‎64.183.48.206 has returned as 2602:306:BDC5:6DC0:159D:A9F7:9682:6057

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.

---

My favorite sociopath has decided to get around his six-month band by working from a different computer and posting his same abusive edits. Please block this one too. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if this is relevant, but see these usernames too- re they connected? Surely so!:

2601:9:A80:7CE:221:E9FF:FEE0:8C3C
2600:1010:B01F:BD99:543C:B037:142E:4FA6
2001:1388:106:FB3A:CCD7:275D:2FE1:CDDF
2A00:D880:3:2:0:0:F60B:1FB7
‎2602:306:cce7:5510:2c59:a3b0:5c7e:a6be
2600:1011:b049:465c:9491:e9ec:b6d0:98a9
‎2605:6000:9d83:d800:404:a84a:11de:2070
‎2003:48:2d2d:a01:a5a6:64c7:7fc4:5ea
‎2404:e801:7458:c972:5417:d542:bbd0:8461
2A01:E35:8A2D:AF10:DD5E:934A:3B5C:40FA
2601:E:1980:532:5C26:7E74:892D:5BFA
2a01:e35:8a2d:af10:2d2e:3cf4:16d:20b0
2001:8003:6023:1a01:a08a:512d:9829:65e7
2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801
2605:e000:efc0:1c:68ee:f5e:5e64:670c
2001:464c:c401:0:1907:5a11:c2d3:56b5
2601:2:5780:b0c:c3:d3d8:7d7:91b1
2601:9:1980:907:B89F:3B1B:8318:20E9
2600:1006:b11d:5531:b945:d20a:9451:85d
2602:306:BDC5:6DC0:159D:A9F7:9682:6057

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

those are WP:IPV6 addresses Avono (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Aaaahh! Nothing to do with Satanism then?! Damn! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked up a half dozen of these. None of them look like my guy. Different interests. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked the new IP. Bob Caldwell CSL, I get that you're frustrated, but please refrain from using "sociopath" when describing other editors, even the disruptive ones.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think my description is accurate, but you're right and I won't use it again. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone (1, 2, 3, 4), you may be entertained by looking at the "Mistaken IPv6 block needs to be undone" section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 13 December 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:CANVASS violations?

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.

---

RGloucester (talk · contribs) recently posted a fairly blatant canvassing attempt at WP:POLITICS under the heading "Need help at Austrian Federal Government", describing the requested move as "wrong for many, many reasons". I have no particular view on the RM, but requested that they reword their request. However, this was met by several denials that they had violated the guideline (with some snarky comments and edit summaries thrown in). This doesn't seem to be the only incidence of such behaviour - there was also this earlier in the day and this yesterday.

Seeing as he's not willing to listen to me, perhaps some other people could weigh in on whether this is canvassing or not (editor notified here). Cheers, Number 57 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear! My asking for third opinions on an Australian (or Austrian) politics-related matter at the Australian (or Austrian) politics WikiProject is downright horrid! Lord smite the man who wants to broaden a discussion, and allow people who actually know something about the subjects at hand participate. Mr 57 has a bone to pick with me, and has had one for quite a while. This is frivolity incarnate. If you want a public execution, go ahead. My head is ripe for the taking. It is quite swollen, right now, so I fear it will make a better trophy. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @RGloucester: Please remain Civil Lor^Chat 22:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Truth cannot be "uncivil". What's better, a few words with a tiny sting, or someone whose actions contain an apparent and subversive subtext of incivility? RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, the point of being civil is so edit warring does not become a yelling match. Your opinions are your own, but it's common courtesy to abide by the rules the community has set out. Lor^Chat 23:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a pretty clear case of canvassing, as defined at WP:CANVASS#Campaigning. It's simple enough to post a neutral notification about a discussion without campaigning for your particular view at the same time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot be neutral on this matter. I should not hide my non-neutrality behind a veil of non-existent "neutrality". That'd be subversive, and what is often called passive aggressiveness. As I said, I must declare my vested interests, so that people know what they're getting into. I'm not a neutral party in this matter, and I can't be. Do you want me to lie? Is lying better than speaking the truth? RGloucester — ☎ 23:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: You never seem to take on board that using your unnecessarily flowery and overblown language only disadvantages you. Leaving that aside, can you explain how your posting to WP:POLITICS complies with the requirement in WP:CANVASS. Specifically "Notifications must be... neutrally worded with a neutral title". You seem to be admitting that you knowingly breached this requirement. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to change how the almighty God has made me for your sake. If I deserve to be executed, execute me. Regardless of such fripperies, there is no such thing as a "requirement". The purpose of the canvassing guideline is to discourage people from recruiting editors to support one's argument in a debate. The spirit of the guideline rails against that behaviour. I did not do this. I did not attempt to "skew" anything. I did not recruit a selective group of editors who I thought would support my view. I asked for third opinions at relevant WikiProjects, not for opinions that mimicked mine. I also made my own position clear, to declare any potential conflicts of interest. In this, nothing about my actions ran counter to the spirit of the guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You declare your position in the discussion itself. No one is asking you to deny your position. But, when posting notifications, you need to avoid campaigning for your side. A neutrally worded statement that there is a discussion on subject xyz that is within scope of a particular WikiProject can be made without stating a side in the notification itself. Note: not lying about a vested interest - obviously all parties in a discussion has a vested interest - but omitting it in the notification where it's not appropriate to be brought up one way or the other. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Uninvolved opinion; This is a technical breach of WP:CANVASS but I would treat it leniently, especially if RGloucester can be persuaded to see that this was unhelpful. Personally, I am more concerned with the editor's grammar error above than by any small damage that may have ensued to the project through this minor faux pas. User:Number 57, this page is to discuss admin actions. What admin actions are you looking for here? It may be that next time you have a complaint like this about an editor, it will best be resolved by a word from another admin, rather than by bringing it to this board. --John (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No, he's declaring UDI from WP:CANVASS. If he's saying he's incapable of complying with it on principle he should be TBAN'd from making any notifications. DeCausa (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I've stuck to the spirit of the canvassing guideline. A literal interpretation of anything is false. Meaning is determined by context. In this case, the meaning of the guideline is clear. As far as the grievous accusation that John has made above, I can only say that I do not believe I've used any such falsities in my writing, and that, if I did, I beg for his eternal pardon. RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not: you've declared against its spirit. If you are not neutral on the subject you don't feel obliged to give a neutral notification. How far from the spirit and letter of it can you get? DeCausa (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The notification in intent and in content was neutral, but my position, as stated within it, was not. It is that simple. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly untrue - your notification stated "This is wrong for many, many reasons" DeCausa (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a question of taking something out of context. The section on Inappropriate notification specifically lists "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." The meaning and intent of that specific item being mentioned at all is quite clear. As John said, this is ultimately a minor matter; but your refusal to even acknowledge the issue, let alone to make an effort to avoid it in the future, is somewhat troubling. Again, no one is asking you to deny that you have a bias in the discussion - just to leave it in the discussion where it belongs and will be obvious to anyone who goes to that discussion, not in the notification. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I go to the projects and write "I NEED PEOPLE TO HELP ME STOP A PAGE MOVE THAT I THINK IS WRONG"? No. I asked for "third opinions" from people more familiar with the subjects involved. It is funny that I can be put on the gallows for something that is clearly acceptable in the context of the guideline, but that the tens of off-Wikipedia canvassed SPAs and IPs that attacked me and a certain article last week were completely ignored. A bunch of rubbish, really. I don't understand what you fellows want from me, though I know very well what Mr 57 wants. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what you did. Do you not realise the meaning of your own post: "Need help at Austrian Federal Government - Editors are trying to chance the title of Austrian Federal Government to Cabinet of Austria. This is wrong for many, many reasons, not least of all unsourced. Third opinions would be appreciated." DeCausa (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "third opinion" inherently implies that the opinions being asked for were not my own. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? "This is wrong for many many reasons" is a straightforward breach of WP:CANVASS. If you don't get that you shouldn't be allowed to make any notifications because you don't accept that you have to word them neutrally. DeCausa (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't run counter to the spirit of the guideline. What's wrong is wrong. If I cannot say what is wrong in my view, how can we ever know what's wrong? I don't feel like getting lost in the valley of the wishy-washy. Regardless, I'm perfectly content to never again in my earthly life issue another notification to anyone. Why should I waste my time, if all it does is cause needless headaches? RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't accept the community's policy on this but undertake not to make any future notifications, then that's fine. I suggest this thread can be closed. DeCausa (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I do accept the community's guideline. I don't accept your interpretation of it, which is literalistic. Regardless, I shan't make a notification. I shall forever remain shackled to my prior transgressions against the honourable editors above. Lord provide me strength to raise myself above this low point in editorial conduct. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all very well but what about the "who's"? --John (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind the who's, let's just hope that some sunny swain will foresooth close this Parlement of Fowles and record RGloucester's shackling therein. DeCausa (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

God has damned me to Hades twice-over for that mistake, John. It is has been corrected, but it shall always remain a mark on my name. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, can we just all settle down? This is almost getting ridiculous the amount of arguing. At the very least let's settle down and deal with this in a calm manner Lor^Chat 00:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's all done and can be closed isn't it? DeCausa (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, here is what I suggest. First, RGloucester gets a final warning for their behaviour, they have violated WP:CANVASS. In addition, one more violation of WP:CIVIL I think will deserve an Arbcom case. Their behaviour (in my opinion) is not good enough for them. To work productively on Wikipedia. This is my opinion though at the very least and I'm in no position to enforce this. Lor^Chat 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My behaviour is defined by context. If your good faith was crushed by tens of lunatic activist SPAs and a personal intercession by the founder of Wikipedia on their behalf, you'd be quite annoyed. If you were forced to deal with editors that do not believe that Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians can understand the meaning of the word "government", despite tons of sources provided to the contrary and pure common sense, you'd be acting the same way as I am now. Regardless, if you want to hang me on a cross, feel free. I don't see what it will accomplish. I'm just a small fry. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 11 December 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.

• Disagree with the above close I don't see any canvassing either. When someone request a third opinion or opens an RFC, it's inherent that they're doing so because they see something wrong, his stating it is not an un-neutral statement, his statement that it violates a certain policy is not un-neutral either, it's a statement of fact. Or, said another way, had he left out the sentance "This is wrong....." it still would have been understood that he believed something was wrong. Further, the definition of canvassing is so vague that it could be interpreted to apply to pretty much any post. His post pointed out what was wrong, and it was posted on a project board, not on the page of someone that had supported him in the past, so no, there doesn't seem to be anything about it that fails neutrality, since we broadly define canvassing as being an un-neutral message or an attempt to sway a vote, and this message was neither. (Posted on a project, not a userpage, and it pointed out what was wrong, per policy , not personal opinion ), I move to strike the trout, no canvassing occurred. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The Devil is in the details, and the line between proper notification and canvassing is totally in the wording of the message posted. It's quite easy to post a note which which says "There's a conflict at X and more eyes are needed there to help resolve it", so posting a message which says "There's a conflict at X, and I need more eyes there to help me since my opponents are wrong" is totally gratuitous, and clearly canvassing by definition. That RGoucester refuses to recognize that, and KoshVorlon agrees with him, indicates a lack of understanding of the canvassing rules on their part. All they need to remember is to post a neutral pointer on appropriate project talk pages, which seems simple enough to understand. BMK (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • This case is a flagrant and unambiguous breach of both the spirit and the letter of WP:CANVASS. The solution is simple: any editor who, by their own declaration, "cannot be neutral on this matter" should not post notifications, but ask someone who is and can be neutral to do so for them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

IBAN Revisited: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis

I have very little experience here, so I apologize for any faults in my presentation. This thread is a continuation and extension of an earlier thread, here [158]. Currently, there is a ban preventing TRM from interacting with BBB and Medeis, and vice versa. As mentioned in the original thread, there is concern that this ban has caused disruption, through arguments that it was being violated, as well as by limiting the effectiveness of these users in certain areas of shared interest; the last conjunct is what brings me to raise this issue, specifically the Reference Desk. All three editors are frequent participants at the RD, and since the RD is in an always on going state, there is always a high potential that they will cross paths. Moreover, given that the RD is currently looking into restructuring and reevaluating how it operates, as in [159], it is highly limiting that each of these users not be able to have a voice, since they are regulars there; and there many other instances on the talk page where it is overly limiting to not allow each user a voice in what is being discussed.

Given the above, I would argue that one of the following two courses be taken: the IBAN is lifted or all three editors are banned from the RD. The utility of the former follows from the above, in that the ban is unduly limiting given their involvement with the desks. As for the latter course: it appears very easy to construe actions and discussions on the desk as "interacting", and this has led to other threads here already, thus, as long as all three are welcome, problems are likely to continue. Moreover, it is awkward, and problematic, when it comes to any discussion on the RD's talk page since the involvement of one editor silences the others; and it makes having an open discussion very difficult as what constitutes "interaction" seems hard to brightly identify.

I do not have the authority to do so, but would hope that all involved are able to discuss, freely, in this thread (I'm not sure if that is already the case, could someone who does know clarify?). My own position would be that the ban be lifted, but that if disruption occurs from that removal, then some (or all) parties be banned from the RD (and other such mutual areas) as a next step.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep IBAN and instigate RD topic ban if consensus for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep IBAN - I doubt all parties will be removed from the Reference Desk, but TRM - would you willingly walk away to defuse the situation? Cutting your ties from that problematic area would probably be the best. Same for the other parties involved, but I don't want to lose good editors over this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment 1 - Do what you want with the IBAN, but don't ban anyone from the ref desks. I will never file another complaint about TRM, nor will I interact with him anywhere, be it the ref desk or otherwise, once this discussion ends. It's worth pointing out that one of TRM's complaints about the IBAN was that it would prevent him from constructing an RFC/U against Medeis and/or myself. With IBAN lifted, he would be free to do so, if he still thinks it's necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment 2 - As a compromise, you could consider a temporary ban from the ref desk talk page, which is where most of the problems seem to arise. Maybe 3 to 6 months, or whatever you all decide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep IBAN and support TBAN. While this was not my original intent, if all parties do not want the ban removed, then I believe this is the correct one (change my vote to the original if all three do decide they want the ban lifted after all). While it does "solve" the issue for one party to walk away, that seems exceptionally unfair since the IBAN is not directed, each party is equally culpable - in short, I do not feel I can suggest that; and there is no reason that those walking away can't change their mind in a month, raising the same issues all over again.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Banning all 3 of us would be no skin off TRM's back, while it would be unfair to Medeis and me. As you well know, Medeis and I are frequent ref desk contributors, while TRM hardly ever goes there except to complain about certain unnamed users. In short, getting us banned from the ref desk is exactly what he wants done. I don't see how that's a fair solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • That may, or may not, be the case - only TRM can say and I won't speculate. But, whatever the case, as it stands, I cannot advocate that any party be removed and the other retained since the IBAN sees all parties equally culpable, I cannot ask for a topic ban to operate differently. Moreover, as long as the IBAN is in place, the only logical conclusion I see is a topic ban: while I applaud your suggestions and willingness to cooperate, they, unfortunately, are not viable: promising to never file again is, effectively, lifting the IBAN, except the IBAN is not an agreement between you all, but the community (in short, you cannot make that agreement if the community doesn't reach that consensus); while a talk page ban seems reasonable, it makes it impossible for any of you to defend or discuss your actions on the desk (what if you hat something or have to remove something, how would you discuss the matter?), if you can't use the talk page, you really can't use the desk.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm becoming truly sick and tired of the baseless accusations being levelled at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's pretty clear that the underlying problem that prompted the IBAN has not gone away. Therefore, Keep IBAN. It also seems to me unlikely that a TBAN from the RD would help; it's far from the only place these three cross paths (especially TRM and Medeis, both frequent contributors to ITN among others). So Oppose TBAN. While there have been a bit of a string of ANI threads about this IBAN of late, it seems to me that this at least contains the disruption on ANI and keeps disruption on the rest of the encyclopaedia to a minimum. So I think the status quo is not that bad. GoldenRing (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Interaction bans are stupid, pointless, ineffective, and an only-on-Wikipedia dysfunctional attempt to solve a problem that our administrators are otherwise unable to deal with. The premise, that two people are simply unable to deal with each other, without assigning blame to either, is flawed. The real life equivalent, restraining orders, are issued only under extreme circumstances. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Interaction bans work as long as the involved parties are in agreement with the IBAN. I was fine with it. I think Medeis was also, but their parallel participation at ITN created potential for trouble. TRM never liked the IBAN, because it prevented him filing an RFC/U against Medeis and/or myself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm confused. Has there been any new conduct since the last time ANI closed a thread about this? I really don't like Rambling Man's policy complaints, but that's not a reason to sanction him. And the other two... I haven't noticed them up to mischief on the Refdesks anytime recently; please cite diffs if there's something of note. Wnt (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of "sanctioning" them for poor behaviour on the RD. The problem is that they can't effectively discuss things on the RD, and that there does not seem to be a clear line on what constitutes "interacting". In other words, as long as there is an IBAN, it's not shocking that something will end up construed as violating that ban and end up here again - it also makes policy changes, and other such, impossible to discuss with the involved parties, and all three of them have caused debates over their actions there, at one point or another. In other words, the issue isn't TRM's policy complaints, but that TRM can't actually discuss those complaints in depth, which just confuses the whole process (for one example).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• • They're not "policy complaints", they're behavioural issues that I have highlighted which, it now seems apparent, several other editors are (in some cases) complete agreement with. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep IBan Oppose any topic ban as being a solution in search of a problem. And noting this has been the result several times here in the past - while "consensus can change", it is quite unlikely to at this juncture since there is no evidence that BB and M have mal-used the RefDesk. Collect (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is wider than RD behaviour, so TBAN won't help. What would help would be if everyone could stop picking at this scab for a while and give it a chance to heal. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right. I think it's also worth pointing out that after TRM had endured a mountain of criticism at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk for his constant negativity, the group there is slowly clawing their way to ideas on how to improve the ref desk. A topic ban would not aid in that process. Cooperation will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Status Quo TRM is in general a very good editor, I'll point out that when he was blocked above I suggested to BB that we personally, as parties to the complaint, request his unblocking. I went to sleep (we don't none of us sleep together) and by the time I saw the issue at lunch, BB had already requested the unblocking and it had been granted. There's no current disruption, and if there were there are already normal mechanisms in place to handle them. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• The three editors should go work out their differences, come back and request the IBAN be lifted. Learn to get along. This IBAN is an ongoing source of wasteful discussion. There should be a page exempted where they can go talk it over. Here, use this one User talk:Jehochman/Arena. Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  Intriguing. Is that page definitively outside the remit of the existing IBAN or this just a splendid trap? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  TRM, with a link to this discussion prominently placed on that page, any admin who cares to take action over breaches of IBAN for the three of you trying to work things out there, will get a rough ride back here on ANI. Go ahead. And may the three of you have the space to work out your differences. My advice to all of you is don't rush it, and you'll have more chance of succeeding. --Dweller (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  This is an intriguing idea. My worry is that it's the wiki equivalent of handing them each a half-brick and locking the door behind you. We shall see. GoldenRing (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• If I understand Jehochman correctly, the proposal is to temporarily lift the IBAN, for that one sandbox page only, and see if the three of us can be cordial and civil. Is that correct? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  That's not the only way I understood it. It's not so much to see whether you're capable of being cordial and civil (of course you all are), but a chance to get beyond this point in a way that people in real life might choose as well, especially when they are working together (though without an audience etc). Dweller's piece of advice is important too: Give it time. And like Dweller, I deeply wish you all best of luck and progress. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Cautious support for lifting the IBAN - At least TRM and BB have shown that they can, on occasion, be pretty reasonable people. Both have contributed to the site in useful ways. I'd hope that they can both bring useful insight to the discussion on the future of the RefDesk. I hold no such hope for medeis, but it would be unfair of me to suggest retaining only part of a restriction which is hard enough to operate as it is. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for TRM - For the record, I'd had no previous experience with or knowledge of TheRamblingMan until earlier this week and thus my knowledge of their recurrent issues with BaseballBugs and Medeis stems entirely from the archives of the multiple ANI discussions on that topic and not from any previous first hand knowledge of the relevant incidences. That being said, I've always been dubious of the effectiveness of IBANs; in my opinion, if an editor can fall into disruptive behaviour with one party, it's inevitable that it will happen with another, since the root issues (minimal respect for our policies as regard civility and consensus building, no matter who you are talking to) are not addressed, which is why I think more conventional bans and blocks are generally called for if the involved parties cannot learn to control their impulses and attitudes with regard to these vital and nonoptional community standards. TRM's behaviour in this case is a perfect representation of that concern -- all the IBAN has accomplished is to cause him to take the traits of BaseballBugs and Medeis that he most dislikes and generalize them to the entirety of the Refdesks, where his behaviour has become consistently and increasingly uncivil and disruptive. Since the IBAN prevents him from directly criticizing either of them, he's just made the RefDesks (and every good faith editor there who disagrees with him) into one giant strawman.

I feel anyone participating in this thread needs to look at his behaviour in the two most recent talkpage threads here and here before they make their recommendations. Virtually every single editor that TRM has interacted with in those discussions has asked him repeatedly to alter his disrespectful and counter-productive approach to discussion in that space, but doing so has only lead to him to reduce each of these efforts to evidence that there is a "club" mentality at work there that will do anything to preserve the status quo, and that this is the true reason that he is not being received well. And this re-contextualization of all criticism of his (frankly, bully-like) behaviour has grown to truly bizarre proportions; he now regularly, with zero evidence and no regard for WP:AGF, vocally and repeatedly insinuates that the active users there are colluding (on wiki and off) in order to sabotage his message, by trying to trap him with in his IBAN or other nerfarious means. Several of us have made repeated attempts to impress upon him that we actually agree in principle with some of his positions on issues facing the Ref Desks, but that the bombastic and caustic wording of his comments are actually serving only as a detriment to exploring reasonable solutions to those problems. But these comments too, if they can be seen as critical of his behaviour in the least, get filled merely as evidence that the "club" is working to thwart him; it seems to be utterly unfathomable to him that so many editors are trying to tell him the same thing because his mode of operation is just that blatantly out-of-sync with a basic adherence to pillar policies, and therefore there must be a conspiracy against him. And all the while, in what I can only describe as profound display of a lack of self-awareness, anyone who crosses him gets accused of ad hominen attacks and harassment, no matter how polite, restrained, or based-in-policy their arguments are.

I'm ambivalent towards the IBAN, with regard to all parties. TRM himself obviously favours it remaining and I figure, under these circumstances, that's reason enough to leave it in place, though I would add that even if the IBAN is removed that he could still voluntarily adhere to it to just to avoid he and the other editors getting sucked into one-another's orbits again, to the detriment of all parties and everyone around them. Regardless of that determination, I strongly feel that TRM should not continue to be involved at the Ref Desks, since he has made it repeatedly and blatantly clear that -- due to his issues with multiple editors who are regular contributors and inability to work within the confines of consensus building in that space in general -- he cannot operate there in a manner that is consistent with basic regard for WP:Civility and other core behavioral policies. At the same time I do not think it is even remotely appropriate to remove BaseballBugs or Medeis, both of whom are regular editors there whose contributions are overwhelmingly positive and non-inflammatory and both of whom have shown repeatedly that they can take the criticisms of other contributors in stride and work within the framework of consensus building. Bans are not about equivocality and we don't need to be removing three parties just in the name of "fairness" when two of them can obviously continue to operate productively in that space. TRM, though, has thoroughly exhausted the reasonable efforts the other editors in that space to try to get him to engage in a civil and productive manner and made clear, in unflinching and immutable fashion that he doesn't particularly care for the space and won't show the basic respect to those operating within it necessary to contribute there -- let alone that necessary to discuss broad changes to the way the space operates, which requires deep patience and tolerance for differing view points in an area which has so many different regular contributors (and thus viewpoints). For the good of all relevant parties, I think TRM needs to be removed from that space. Snow talk 02:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I truly appreciate Snow Rise's attention to the issue. I still have to say that as a party who's asked three times for TRM's being banned from interacting with me, that the IBAN, and that alone should be sufficient. We don't need the IBAN raised and we certainly don't need to be invited to duke it out for the enjoyment of the Gamesters of Triskelion, as Alex Tiefling suggests.

Inded, while I was not surprised by his recent raking over the coals at RD Talk I don't think it was necessary, he saw that he can be blocked, and BBB and I asked for him to be unblocked, as Jehochman, who did unblock him, can attest. TRM has knowledge that can be (is) useful at the RD and there's no reason to block him as such there or at ITN. We can all do just fine if we don't find it necessary to attack people, or, especially, accuse them without supporting diffs.

As for raising the IBAN? No. I do not need to be put in a position where I have to defend myself from potential future unsupprted attacks, incivility and innueundo. As one can see in most cases at ITN TRM and I have been able to work together quite well, and he's even thanked me for my work there since the IBAN has been in place. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I would add that Snow has used various venues to berate me and my approach to trying to improve the Ref Desk. He doesn't agree with me. Many others don't as well, but several do. It seems that his request for a topic ban is designed to simply shut me up. His various walls of text are indicative of someone with a serious grudge. If he spent as long improving Wikipedia or answering questions at the Ref Desk as he does writing paragraph after paragraph of character assassination, Wikipedia would be a better place. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My proclivity for verbosity when I see someone trampling all over our civility standards not withstanding, anyone who wants to get to the truth here can feel free (and as far as I am concerned, very much encouraged) to go to the talk page and review the relevant discussions there in order to assess your claim (which you have leveled at just about everyone who has disagreed with you there) that my motivation is some sort of grudge against you. I didn't know you from Adam two days ago, TRM -- though my experiences with you since and the significant trail you have left in the archives here at ANI have given me a thorough impression of a problem editor whose concern for the overall well-being of the project is not sufficient to overcome his desire to pursue personal grievances, even if it means stepping well outside policy and ignoring the advice of all around him. But I didn't request the topic ban -- that was forwarded as a suggestion here well before I arrived -- though I am increasingly convinced that it is inevitable. And "various venues"? We have only ever interacted on exactly one page, the talk page I linked to above, only on the one narrow topic of your incivility and only over the last couple of days, before which I never even knew of your existence.

And thank you, but I can decide for myself how best to apply my energies on this project; I have contributed regular and significant content in a variety of areas for years and if you don't think I'd rather be doing that right now than taking time to deal with this, you really have seriously misjudged my motivation here. Nobody wants to deal with disruptive contributors but it's a reality of the work we do here, and if I have to take the time present a long-winded summary of your behaviour so it doesn't go unremarked upon as the admins here try to determine what to do about these long-standing and highly-disruptive issues to which you are a party, well then, so be it; better that I should have to do it once now than that this cycle be repeated yet again. And, for about the hundredth time, I actually agree with you about many of the issues concerning the Ref Desks. What I don't agree with is your caustic, personalized way of trying to affect change, nor your coming there in the first place with the apparent purpose of furthering your drama with Medeis. Snow talk 07:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Do your own civility standards include making false assertions (aka lies) and incorrect assumptions? I thought so. I think I'll seek an IBAN between the two of us so you can stop with your deceit. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, so you're telling me that it's just complete coincidence that, on the exact same day that you were engaged in disputes with Medeis in other venues, you show up on the Reference Desks for the first time in about a month and your very first post just happens to be the closure of the thread that Medeis had last commented in with the explanation "Reasonably pointless question, utterly pointless answers"? That's just coincidence? Are you further telling me that the slew of posts which followed ([160], [161], [162], [163], [164], for just a few examples), which utilize such language as "pathetic", "sad", "useless", "pointless", "nonsense", "if you are so blind", and "love me because I'm funny/clever/satirical" in their content and edit summaries are not uncivil? Of the ten or so posts you made on the various reference desks in the hours after falling into conflict with Medeis again, not one actually makes an attempt to answer a question asked by the OP. Rather, each and every single one of them is a mean-spirited and unambiguous effort at denigrating the good-faith efforts of your fellow contributors. That's what I'm talking about when I reference civility standards; so what am I lying about exactly?

As for your implication of seeking an IBAN against me, that tool exists to separate one editor from another from whom they simply cannot disengage after long-standing and severe issues, when all other options have failed -- not to be used as a threat against someone who has had all of two days of interaction with you, simply because they happen to be largely critical of you and your regard for community behavioural standards. I think the fact that you are trying to leverage it against me here speaks volumes for the fact that you seem to view procedure and policy as means to intimidate others and manipulate the parameters of a conversation and the ability of others in the community to call you out on your actions, rather than utilizing them as good-faith means to genuinely improve the project. Regardless, I am not concerned, being confident that I have kept all of my comments towards you above-board, based in policy and free of personalization, from the very start of our interaction, and equally confident that any admin looking into the matter will see as much. But is that really the solution you would want to seek anyway? Securing a mutual IBAN against anyone on the Reference Desks who happens to disagree with you? If you keep that up, you ironically actually will form the club you keep implying already exists there -- the one in which you are, by definition, the only non-member. In any event, if you wish to continue calling me a liar, I'd very much appreciate if you would be specific as to which statements I've made which you feel are false and supply the evidence for why they are so. Snow talk 09:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, please drop the stick now. It's evident that you dislike me and my approach, but all these walls of text are completely unhelpful. You're made your position clear (crystal, like mountain water) so please spare us any further assumptions and pseudo-detective work. I'm just glad to see that some ref desk editors are finally getting round to discussing solutions, not just bombarding the community with megabytes of assumptions and falsehoods. Try channeling all this enthusiasm into article space, that way you'll help improve Wikipedia for our readers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was just editing my response along those lines. In this you are quite right. I've made several lengthy posts here already and I've said my peace, so rather than give you the ability to try to twist the length and number of my responses into supposed evidence that this matter is somehow personal for me, I'm going to disengage and let the admins and other volunteers here do their work of combing through the discussions to come to their own conclusions. Short of absolute necessity, I'll allow my interpretation of the issues involved with your bans stand as they are. But I want you to know something: I think you're a bully, plain and simple. Your conduct is atrocious for someone whom the community has invested with the position of an administrator. And if I ever come across you anywhere on this project treating people the way you've treated volunteers on the Ref Desk the last few days, I won't waste time bringing the matter to ANI again -- I'll go straight to ArbCom and make the filing myself. Best of luck to everyone here sorting through this mess. Snow talk 10:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ZOMG, The Mighty ArbCom? Good luck with that. Your threat is meaningless and childish (I'll tell on you!!) and frankly, the mess is of your own creation. You'd be better off expending this megabytes on improving articles that interest you (like I'm doing) rather than spend day after day dedicated to seeing the back of me. You're only making yourself look ... odd ... in doing that. As for "treatment of Ref Desk volunteers", if you mean I've demanded a high standard of response, with references, and less joking around and less banter and less opinion, well go sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, what I mean by the way you treat the other volunteers there is....

• Blatant violations of WP:Civility in which you denigrate other editors (at least one of which you seemed to be hounding in defiance of your IBAN) and their contributions as "pathetic", "sad", "useless", "pointless", "nonsense", "blind", and needy, just to reference a few of the overall comments: [165][166][167] [168][169] [170].

• Violations of WP:Civility and WP:AGF in which you dismiss any criticism of your behaviour by suggesting (utilizing insulting and directly antagonistic language) that everyone commenting but you is part of a "club" which has decided to put their own needy desire for attention and protecting one-another's back above the greater good of the project and further implying (without a shred of evidence) that they (including editors who had just made your acquaintance) were colluding with off-wiki coordination for the express purpose of getting you banned or blocked: [171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181]

See, it's a problem on Wikipedia when you can't take any form of advice or criticism without seeing it as a conspiracy against you, even when multiple persons (read: every other editor involved in the discussion) are trying to tell you your behaviour is unacceptable -- only to have you just reduce them all to one giant strawmen of idiotic, half-informed, self-indulgent, non-editors only out to stroke their own ego and cover eachother's backs, rather than dedicated, good-faith contributors who are trying to improve the project same as you. Do you really not see how that is uncivil? We aren't collectively out to get you, nor are we all trying to silence you to enforce the status quo - we simply feel your hostile comments (which often come in the form of a straight insult as a means of stating your displeasure with no productive component) do not improve anything and we just want you to tone it down a bit. You're an admin -- have you never had to ask someone to take a breath and try to consider saying something in a more calm and civil manner? What would you say or do in the event that they insulted everyone who even suggested as much?

• Perhaps most concerning of all, comments celebrating all of the above tactics as successful in helping you get your way, as in comments such as "this has sparked a useful debate below which hopefully will result in some changes, the sort of changes I want to see. So perhaps I will get my way after all!" and "I understand that my approach has been received with varying degrees of revulsion. But the wheels of improvement are finally turning.", amongst others. This "the ends justify the means" attitude of yours is at the root of what I'm trying to get at with you here; WP:Civility is not an optional policy that you can just disregard so long as in your head you're getting things done (or even if everyone agreed you were getting things done!). It is a vital, non-negotiable community standard that you are expected to at least minimally adhere to if you are going to contribute on this project in any space where you have to interact with others. You aren't above the rules just because you think you're getting results. And that's if we accept this ridiculous notion that your showing up and carpet-bombing multiple pages with nothing but insult after insult directly contributed to an improvement of the page, which I personally find to be an asinine leap.

This is why I don't see the IBAN as at all the core issue that needs to be examined here. Because I have never known Bugs or Medeis to exhibit disruptive behaviour on anything approaching this scale or gal. But not only does this seem to be your standard mode of operation, but you actually feel entitled to it. Even here, on the very forum that hosted a discussion that saw you blocked for hounding just a few days ago, you don't feel the slightest need to be even remotely apologetic, or to concede that your behaviour towards your fellow editors could use some tweaking to be more civil and productive. And the amazing thing is, you actually are getting away with it, at present. And it's caused you to create this image of yourself (which you've shared with us repeatedly) as a brave reformer, who is willing to shoulder the burden of being unfairly disliked, so long as you get the results you want and think would be best -- even if it means torpedoing the consenus-making process. Regardless of your motivation, regardless of your results (perceived or real), talking to people the way you do in the diffs above is just not allowed on Wikipedia, no matter who you are, how long you've been here or how certain you are that you're arguing for the right cause. Can you just acknowledge that? Because, I tell you what, if you can, I will withdraw my own support for the TBAN; if you'll just do nothing more than promise that you will be mindful of the need to approach other editors (including even those you disagree with and don't particularly find to be useful members of the community) with respect, I for one will take you at face value. If you can't do that, I don't see much hope that you will ever be able to contribute in a space with as many active editors as the Reference Desks without causing discord.

The thing is, civility is not just vital, it also costs us nothing. You can make effective and forceful argument without parting with it from a second. Anything you can accomplish here without it, you can accomplish with it -- usually faster and more efficiently and definitely with a lot less lingering animosity. Snow talk 02:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I neither want nor need you to withdraw your TBAN claim. I don't care about it, and neither does anyone else it would appear. You agreed that you had "said your peace (sic)" and that you would desist from this discussion, yet once again another falsehood as you return to bombard the noticeboard with more walls of text. Time to improve the encyclopedia, write a Good Article or something. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't say the verdict is in just yet as to whether the community cares about this behaviour. As to responding to you again, you'll note that I said I wouldn't unless I felt it strictly necessary and while, yes, I did feel a little awkward about it, if you're going to keep trying to spin this situation to come of as the victim, I didn't feel I really had much choice but to supply those diffs to keep the matter clear for anyone who has to make a determination here. This was less about making sure my words were noted and more about yours. And having done that, I thought I might make one last honest effort to try to get you to take a look for yourself at just what you had said, though I must admit, I unfortunately got exactly the response I expected. I wouldn't call it a mere wall of text though. You asked a question, as to what I meant about how you had treated other editors on the Ref Desks -- those 20 diffs, containing varying kinds of uncivil behaviour, are my explanation. Now you have a habit of dodging any question that's been asked of you during this whole affair which asks you to evaluate your own behaviour, every one of them. So I'm asking just one simple question here that I think is completely germane to this discussion no matter how fair or unfair you think my judgement of you has been these last few days, something I think everyone would like to hear, whether you think they care or not: looking at those diffs, do you feel that their content represents uncivil behaviour? Will you answer that question for me, please, if only just that one? Snow talk 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already said that my approach to getting others to see the issues at the Ref Desk has been variously vilified and I acknowledge that some more sensitive types may object. I can't comment on your "judgement", you dug up some diffs and more power to you. You haven't bothered digging up the other 122000 diffs which don't match your profiling of me. If it helps, you can rest assured your text walls have raised my awareness of the situation and I will try hard to be a better person. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, while I'm glad that you both can agree to the pragmatic advantage of just making sure that neither of you can directly interact, the problem is that the issues between you (and between TRM and Bugs) have grown so substantial that they are causing significant issues beyond any direct character attacks or acrimony between you two. You say that the two of you are capable of peacefully co-habitating in the same spaces and that he's even thanked you for your work and yet you filed an ANI complaint just days ago alleging that he was hounding you and making comments in defiance of that ban. It seems all but certain, given the timing and the nature of his comments, that TRM showing up on the reference desk and hatting a discussion you were involved with, utilizing heavily disrespectful language was an extension of that hounding. The persistence of that behaviour led to an extensive discussion of TRM's incivility on the talk page, which he then managed to parley into an even longer discussion about the appropriateness of other users behaviour, with many a blanket indictment on his part about the shortcomings of other editors there and other WP:AGF- and WP:Civility-defying implications of others working in unison against him, and finally now we have this, the latest in a long series of ANI's surrounding the fallout of even tenuous interactions between you two, all within mere days of his being blocked for similar activities.

Each of these discussions is eating up massive volumes of volunteer hours to mediate, while never reaching a long-term, stable solution. Now, the contributors at ITN and other spaces where you two are likely to cross paths can decide how to deal with any disruptions that occur there in their own way, but I think I speak for everyone whose had to watch this drama unfold at the ref desks when I say we need to see an end to this ugliness there. And given TRM's inability to take the recommendations of his fellow editors there at face value, rather than reducing them to evidence of a conspiracy against him -- not matter how many different individuals who have no previous beef with him join the chorus -- and his refusal to reform his approach, I just don't see any options other than banning him from the Ref Desks (which he clearly has nothing but disdain for anyway) altogether. Let me ask you a question that I need you to be bluntly honest about -- and this is something that I wanted to ask you from the beginning of this mess, but couldn't ask in another venue because I felt it wouldn't be fair to ask you to voluntary violate the IBAN: when he spontaneously showed up on the Ref Desks, hatted the very discussion you were involved with and made broad insults to those involved in it, was there any doubt in your mind that these comments were directed at you and that they were connected to the issues that you two were engaged with at ITN and here on ANI?

I think I know the answer to that question already, but regardless, it seems obvious to me that while the IBAN may be serving to protect the two of you from eachother and the effects of the bad blood between you, it is only doing so by redirecting that negative energy outward with consequences that the rest of us have to deal with. Responding admins will have to make their own determinations on whether you and TRM can get on well enough not cause intolerable disruption on ITN and other venues, but I say the volunteers at the Reference Desk have had to deal with enough of this nonsense. And since TRM is the one who can't seem to get on with anyone else there, who has made clear his disdain for the space, who thinks everyone critical of him there is part of an alliance against him 'and seeing as he was the one who seems to have gone there looking to further the drama between you two, I just don't see any solution to effectively restore calm in a stable and long term manner than making sure that he can't return there to start the process all over again the next time he has a beef with you, wherever it arises. Snow talk 07:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"TRM is the one who can't seem to get on with anyone else there" is actually a lie. I wondered how long it would be before you started to actually descend to this level. I'm also surprised to learn that you believe you can read my mind. Do us all a favour and move on to another topic which is deserving of your walls of texts, occasional falsehoods and incorrect assumptions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My offer to mediate has only been accepted by one of the three parties. The community has tried for quite a while but can't seem to end this controversy. I think we should bring the matter to arbitration and get it resolved once and for all. A deep investigation is required. This notice board is t suited for that. Jehochman ^Talk 10:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Make that 2 now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look. Jehochman ^Talk 12:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't get excited. So far I've only put a "placeholder" there to make that item rise to the top of my list. I'll be posting something real there soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a shame, but it's not without some irony that the three of us have (sort of) exchanged more civility here than we have ever done. I don't see any advantage in Arbitration, the IBAN has consensus to stay, if people want me off the RD then that's a different matter. It is gratifying to see that many commentators have agreed that there is a problem, and I understand that my approach has been received with varying degrees of revulsion. But the wheels of improvement are finally turning. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As an onlooker to this situation and very occasional commenter, I have to agree with Jehochman's suggestion of arbitration. The differences between the parties appear intractable. Jusdafax 11:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Not for me, anyway. TRM and I have only interacted here (of course) and on the ref desks, as far as I can recall. There are others on the ref desk that don't like me (and/or vice versa) and I'm quite content to either ignore them or try to keep the temperature from increasing. In fact, they have had little cause to criticize my activity there lately. It's worth pointing out that Medeis and I have had seriously hot-tempered debates in the past, but we've gotten past that and have since been able to work together cordially. I don't see why it should be any different with TRM. This extensive discussion here and there has given me better insight to where TRM is coming from. It looks like there is an effort being made to improve the quality of responses at the ref desk, and that's been TRM's core complaint. So I am optimistic. I don't think it's necessary to ban any of the three of us from the ref desk, and once we can interact better, here and on Jehochman's page, the question of lifting the IBAN should answer itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration is just a negotiation with a bit of formal support, and an enforceable result. I'm not going to file a request, but if any of the parties feel that negiations are deadlocked, they can. Jehochman ^Talk 12:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a wonderful sentiment; although, I'm not so sure I'd be quite as optimistic as that Jon. Sometimes a case will take some unexpected twists and turns, and there is the unknown factor of who exactly will show up to put an edge on a particular ax. No disrespect to the folks at arbcom, they only respond to what is presented; but, as the "last resort" in dispute resolution, often harsh remedies can be a result. Personally I think the page that you've generously offered to host would be the next best venue to attempt. I'm familiar with both Bugs and TRM, and know them both to be reasonable adult editors who have the best interests of the project at heart. I'll assume the same with the 3rd editor as well. Perhaps they may not always agree with the same methods, or take exception with an attempt at humor, but I suspect an open area with a moderator might prove to be quite a benefit. (if you are willing, and it appears you are) I would strongly suggest your page before any request to arbcom. If some agreements can be reached, the current IBAN could even be vacated in time. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep iBan I dont see much reason to get rid of it. It's working as intended. Lor^Chat 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "It's working as intended." Really? Then why are there two threads on this page about the IBAN'd editors? BMK (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• • The main issue for raising this is that a discussion of TRM's methods on the RD were rendered impossible because of the IBAN - which is the central problem. If I, or anyone, can't adequately interact with a user because of this, then it is either interfering with their ability to be in that place or it is intrusive, hence the specific proposal above. That it, the IBAN, stopped a legitimate discussion that did not involve the parties involved directly interacting is a strong sign that it is not doing what it should be (or that it is doing things it shouldn't).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Interested in whether User talk:Jehochman/Arena would work in generating some understanding between the involved parties over these issues. Ideally by gaining a sense of the other party's viewpoint, the editors will be able to communicate amicably or at least show enough tact and restraint to walk away when things get heated. Obviously this will only work if the editors demonstrate an active effort in fixing these communication issues. @Medeis: I would recommend that you participate like the other two. —Dark 08:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DarkFalls, but participate in what, exactly? I have no problem with TRM. We work together fine when we avoid each other's toes where we do overlap. Jehochman's aware that it was I and BBB who asked that TRM's block for violating the IBAN be lifted, and I am not worried he's going to violate it. I certainly won't. There's nothing I want him to stop doing, I don't suspect TRM of thoughtcrime, and I don't see any sense in picking over old issues or trying to find new ones.

The consensus above is to keep the IBAN and drop the matter, I am agreed. I believe the Christians and the US Constitution have it right--no double jeopardy, once a "sin" is forgiven it's wiped clean. As for discussing TRM at the RD talk page, IBAN or not, I had nothing to say. I am not TRM's judge, and as I have expressed previously, even with good intentions, open ended discussions of editors as editors are unfair. Unless there's some future malfeasances by someone where we have diffs to prove a new charge, in all good conscience, this issue should be dropped. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

ALPCA 5632

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 called ALPCA 5632 has been causing trouble on the Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania article.

On October 28, Meldar667 updated the article "to keep up with changes and/or updates of various styles", as he pointed out in the edit summary. This was a perfectly reasonable edit - apportioned truck plates in Pennsylvania have indeed reached the AG series, and the format of dealer plates is indeed now K12-345K.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=631479245&oldid=631477285

On November 23, I edited the article twice - first to give a separate row to every serial format used on passenger plates in Pennsylvania since 1958, and then to point out the most recent passenger serial issued in the state. I made both these edits with the intention of bringing the article into line with other articles on vehicle registration plates of US states and Canadian provinces and territories.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635165101&oldid=631479245
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635165516&oldid=635165101

For whatever reason - he did not give one in the edit summary - ALPCA 5632 took exception to all three of these edits, and undid them on November 27. He also marked this as a minor edit, again for a reason I cannot fathom.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635673331&oldid=635165516

As it was clearly not a minor edit, and no explanation was given for it, it looked to me like vandalism. So I reverted it.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635674107&oldid=635673331

On November 30, ALPCA 5632 reverted it back. Again, he did not give a reason.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635968430&oldid=635674107

I reverted it back again - this time telling him to give a good reason for his actions, if there even was one.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635977106&oldid=635968430

He did not take the hint, and on December 7 he performed his actions without reason for a third time.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=636980912&oldid=635977106

Having undone them once again, I felt compelled to give him a warning for them - and so I did.

Still he did not take the hint, and on December 10, not only did he perform his actions without reason for a fourth time - but he also removed my warning, claiming it was a "threat".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=637483934&oldid=637024868
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ALPCA_5632&diff=637483657&oldid=637030594

So, for a fourth time, I undid his actions - telling him that it was getting ridiculous by this stage, and asking him why he couldn't accept the three edits he had been repeatedly undoing, and why he couldn't provide any sort of a reason for not accepting them.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=637505703&oldid=637483934

I also restored my warning, saying that a warning on Wikipedia is not the same as a threat. (I don't believe it is, anyway - to me, threats on Wikipedia are immature remarks like "I'm going to kill you" or "I'm going to get you banned from editing".)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ALPCA_5632&diff=637507088&oldid=637483657

But still he did not take any hints - and, on December 12, he performed his actions without reason for a fifth time, and removed my warning for a second time (again calling it a threat).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=637701414&oldid=637505703
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ALPCA_5632&diff=637701383&oldid=637507088

It has reached the stage now where I think administrator action is required.

I'd like to point out, however, that despite everything, I'm not actually intending to drive ALPCA 5632 away from the Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania article, or from Wikipedia altogether. It never has been, and never will be, my intention to drive other Wikipedia users away, no matter how troublesome they are.

But I do feel that there are some lessons that ALPCA 5632 needs to learn. And it would probably be better if he learned these lessons from someone other than me. Bluebird207 (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - FWIW, given the article in question and the User name involved, "ALPCA" likely stands for "Automobile License Plate Collectors Association" so this person likely considers themselves an "expert" on this subject material. Also, any links to the Talk page discussion regarding this matter? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That talk page seems awfully lonely. I can see the improvement from Bluebird207 and Meldar667's edits but it's clear that ALPCA 5632 doesn't like something about them. Discussion hopefully will solve this (or at least give one side the high road in this...). 129.9.75.250 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit that, for the time being, I don't really see much point in discussing the matter on the talk page for the article.

IMO, such a discussion would surely require at least one contribution from ALPCA 5632. But since he has had five opportunities to explain his reversions of my edits and Meldar667's in the edit summary, and has taken none of them, it does not seem very likely that he will contribute to such a discussion. Bluebird207 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the generally accepted methodology with a key emphasis on the D for Discuss. It doesn't matter who starts it as long as it happens. Right now both sides are "guilty" of not communicating well, so ANI is premature. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Without meaning to look for trouble here, may I ask how I am not communicating well in this situation?

And I still feel that a discussion would require at least one contribution from ALPCA 5632. What happens if he does not contribute at all?

Once again, let me say that I do not intend to drive him away from the article, or from Wikipedia - but I do feel that there are lessons he needs to learn, and that it might be better if he learned these lessons from someone other than me. Bluebird207 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Edit Summaries are not the place for a conversation especially when one party or another is being unreasonable. Give them the chance to defend their edits, or, to not participate and fairly clearly indicate that they are being disruptive or WP:NOTHERE. THEN its time to bring this to ANI or another appropriate Board, this is just a content dispute at this point. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Scalhotrod here. When there's a complaint on ANI about another party not responding to discussion, I will often check the talk page. If there's nothing there, that's rarely a good sign. Even if some attempts have been made at communicating via edit summaries, you should still attempt discussion on the talk page, this makes for a far better ANI complaint. (In Remember also it ultimately doesn't matter who should have started the discussion, it's far better that someone does start the discussion. Ideally you should also try contacting them via their talk page, particularly if they are new but I wouldn't necessarily dismiss a complaint just because you didn't. Of course you will have to notify them when bringing and ANI complain, and if this notification brings them to the party there'd probably be no followup (whether because they realise it's serious or because they were confused about discussion before), so it is in your interest to try and convince them rather than waste your time at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Q: "Without meaning to look for trouble here, may I ask how I am not communicating well in this situation?"

A: You have bitten a newcomer with only 12 edits. You have not welcomed them. You have not invited them to discuss changes on the article's talk page. You have not engaged them in any alternate dispute resolution before coming to WP:AN/I, the last stage for editor behavior before a WP:RFC/U or an WP:ARBCOM case.

Bluebird207, I strongly suggest you take some time to reflect on your own editing behavior.

Can we close this "per what Scalhotrod wrote", please?

Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, all right. No need to be like that. I'm not entirely familiar with the quirks of reporting users and settling edit disputes, after all.

I'll start the discussion right away.

But I'll say it one last time - I feel that ALPCA 5632 has to make at least one contribution to this discussion. And if he doesn't - whether by accident or design - then I think it's fair to say that the matter will have to be taken further. Bluebird207 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion's up: Talk:Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania#Recent edits.

I will now remove ANI from my watchlist. Bluebird207 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 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.

Wikihounding

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.

---

My first encounter with User:DHeyward was at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. I'm not aware of any previous run-ins with him. I brought DHeyward's behavior up at the GamerGate enforcement request page but my request was closed with no action. Since then, DHeyward has followed me to two articles and specifically targeted my edits: [182] and [183]. Today he even followed me to an SPI case that I opened, writing a diatribe against me and another experienced editor who also objected to DHeyward's edits. I've been an editor since 2010 but this kind of aggressive wikihounding is new for me. Try an interaction ban? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sonicyouth86. The sorts of links you've given above aren't very helpful, which means people are less likely to review your complaint. You should use diffs. See the Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I thought that the usersearch tool provided a better picture but here are the diffs as requested: His first edit on the first page that he followed me to; his first edit on the second page he followed me to; his edits on the SPI that I opened today. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not uncommon to have your editing examined by seasoned editors if your editing history needs scrutiny.--MONGO 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And your possible BLP violation and editing warring here led me to ask for page protection.--MONGO 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let uninvolved editors scrutinize my editing, I welcome it. You are not an uninvolved editor and you know it. I can understand your wish to help DHeyward, especially considering that he has returned the favor here for example, but please let uninvolved editors examine this. As for your accusation "BLP violation", you know that it's not what happened. I also don't see any BLP violations in the edit that was reverted by DHeyward. But you tried, that's something. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest User:NE_Ent/Unilateral_interaction_ban NE Ent 03:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I can and do ignore his allegations in discussions (like on the SPI case that he's followed me to) but I don't see how that can work in articles where he shows up to revert my policy-compliant edits. The "just ignore him" type of advice isn't helpful in this case. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The edits you agree can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis mine) every time you press "Save page"? NE Ent 03:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The policy-compliant edits that an editor hounds with the single purpose of reverting them? Sure. Let's try it for a week. You contribute article content sourced to academic sources or remove unsourced nonsense about living persons or open and SPI, all the things that I did and that DHeyward found offensive. And I stop by and revert your changes, leaving incoherent edit summaries and accusing you of every wiki-sin. And then you tell me how you liked it. You expressed your opinion on the enforcement page, why are you here again? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, NE Ent. Wikihounding is a user behavior issue, not a release-of-copyright issue. We don't excuse unwarranted blanking or vandalism on the grounds that all users agree to release their writing, either. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't wikihounding. It's all related to Sonicyouth86's desire to include questionable BLP material to Christina Hoff Sommers. When he failed, he moved to her book Who Stole Feminism? which is a 20 year old book. When he added fringe material to the book on the "rule of thumb" I pointed out to him that we had an article on Rule of thumb that also called it fringe. So he attempted to add it there as well. In the meantime, he warned both ImprovingWiki and me about GamerGate sanctions related to Sommers. For me, he tried and failed to get sanctions. For Improving Wiki he filed a SPI. Using these processes as a weapon (as he is doing here) should not be rewarded. My only interest is that he not create BLP violations and mischaracterizations (some of which were highlighted by Ms. Sommers through twitter and were well publicized - Jimbo weighed in, sonicyouth86 disagreed with him). For the record, ImprovingWiki and I don't agree on a lot of content but we haven't turned it into a drama fest and neither of us has added BLP violating material. Sonicyouth86 seems to believe consensus involves punishment and threatening those who dissent. --DHeyward (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Here are the two "questionable" edits on two separate pages that caused DHeyward to follow me to the pages and revert my edits: first article and second article. And of course the "questionable" SPI that DHeyward simply couldn't resist because I opened it. I trust that editors will see through DHeyward's diversions and allegations. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

sigh? This is just the edits you made to my talk page telling me about all the mean things the admins will be doing to me for opposing your violations. [184][185][186][187] and the coup de gras, the edit war template [188]. I think you've taken me forum shopped me to 3 or 4 noticeboards in a week. Now, I don't know ImprovingWiki from Adam, but I recognize bullying and intimidation. I have not tried to keep you from editing in any way, only to keep poor edits out of the encyclopedia. Please stop the boarding of editors and find another topic area outside of BLPs, especially of people you seem to disagree strongly with. --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward says "this isn't wikihounding" but then he describes how he followed Sonicyouth86 to the Sommers book and then to the rule of thumb article, both of which were first edited by Sonicyouth86. He then showed up at the SPI Sonicyouth86 filed, which had nothing to do with DHeyward. So DHeyward is certainly following Sonicyouth86's edit history. I would like to see him explain how it was relevant for him to comment at the SPI, especially since I was dragged into it in his comments. The comment there was hounding, pure and simple, trying to derail the valid concerns raised there. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I call bullshit....someone leaves a notification of possible sanctions notice on my talkpage and other unfriendly reminders and obnoxious bits of advice and I sure as hell am going to follow them around as well to see what other stupidities they might be up to. Considering all the bait Sonicyouth86 has tossed about and the forum shopping to boot, he should expect to see his editing scrutinized. If nothing serious turns up then it's to everyones benefit.--MONGO 05:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous bullshit! Sonicyouth86 has dragged DHeyward to the NOR noticeboard and tried to get him sanctioned on the Gamergate arbcom case, both unsuccessfully and now is here claiming he is being wikistalked by DHeyward? He should expect to be followed after all this garbage. We routinely block and then ban editors with a vendetta...Sonicyouth86 better chill out fast.--MONGO 05:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The HOUNDING guideline does not say that if someone bugs you then you should follow them around and bug them back. DHeyward had no reason to comment at the valid SPI filed by Sonicyouth86. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering all the other harassment that Sonicyouth86 has been engaged in against DHeyward is anyone shocked that DHeyward would also look at this SPI. Perhaps DHeyward assumed erroneously (but for valid reasons) that the SPI may be another effort to seek sanction against an editor that disagreed with Sonic youth86...there is precedent for that as one can clearly see.--MONGO 06:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, your earlier analysis of "who edited first" is misleading. For example, he went to edit rule of thumb after I pointed out we had a well sourced article. His edit to "Who stole Feminism?" was a fringe view. So he edited rule of thumb to make the fringe appear not to be fringe. He went there after this. [189]. He is correct that Kelly is authoritative. What he misses is that whoever gave him the out of context sentence that is fringe, didn't give him the entire paragraph or paper - the 20 page paper is a treatise on how rule of thumb has nothing to do with a legal interpretation of wife-beating, including Blackstone. I can't pre-cog bad edits but when he adds a bad edit to one article, gets shown how another very well sourced article that is more specific disagrees with him and he proceeds over to that article - that's not following. I already read and vetted the article, mainstream views and sources and even retrieved the JSTOR document and tediously transcluded the text so he would understand. If you tell an editor adding flat-earth theory to the Ferdinand Magellan article that we had the Apollo moon landing and took pictures and the editor proceeds go to Apollo to add the flat-earth stuff they attempted to add to Magellan, that's not wikihounding to protect the Apollo article, too. --DHeyward (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You are inflating the problem by calling his position "fringe". It is a common misconception that 'rule of thumb' came from the size of stick used for wife beating; this is not a fringe position held by an unimportant few. I can show you a dozen scholarly papers that assume the misconception, and these papers are not written by fringe people. I can show you a hundred books written by otherwise reliable authors who assume the misconception. Sonicyouth86 was not a dangerous juggernaut intent on wrecking the wiki, instead Sonicyouth86 was following the sources, of which there are quite a lot to draw from, all of which contradict the Kelly paper. The authority of the Kelly paper is not apparent to someone seeing 100:1 ratios in the literature. Kelly's authority comes from a deeper investigation. So I disagree with the way that you paint Sonicyouth86 as pushing some kind of fringe POV. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, and here is why your revert to his edit on that page was not well thought out when you blindly restored his misconception as "properly sourced." He was not arguing that there were opponents to Kelly, rather he was inserting, in Kelly's voice that Kelly supported the view that the rule of thumb was being used in courts. The origin may have many misconceptions that are not supported by scholarly literature. We don't publish misconceptions as fact. There are many people with misconceptions about global warming or evolution. It is not wikihounding to prevent them from spreading those misconceptions to articles that are uncontaminated especially when they were given those articles as links to broaden their viewpoint. Widely held but unverifiable views can be called anything you like except encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur the comments on SPI were bad form -- purpose of the page is provide information to reviewing SPI clerks, not continue disputes. NE Ent 11:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mongo: You appear to be saying that he has been following me out of revenge for my "harassment" (NOP noticeboard which led to the removal of his OR and GG noticeboard) and that he's justified in doing it. That described his "vendetta" (and yours) pretty nicely. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My vendetta? That's a cute little stretch playing the victim card when the facts are I watched you bait and badger and make every effort to seek sanction against an editor who is in oppostion to your BLP violations and POV pushing....which is once again what your posting here is all about.--MONGO 12:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If by "bait and badger" you mean open a discussion at the NOR noticeboard which led to the removal of DHeyward's original research and the request at the GG enforcement page, yes. But your definition of "bait and badger" is surreal. Again, you're saying that he wikihounds me as revenge for my alleged baiting and badgering. You haven't been able to show a single BLP violation or instance of "POV pushing" on my part, just shrill accusations. My two article edits that were wikihounded and reverted (1 + 2) by DHeward and the SPI that I opened didn't contain anything of what you allege. In fact, I removed an unsourced statement about a BLP subject with the first edit, and attributed POV to a jurist in 1675 (primary source) with the second edit. My edits were perfectly policy-compliant, DHeyward's reverts were not. But, again, please stop derailing this discussion about wikihounding with shrill and obviously false accusations of misconduct on my part. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Without evaluating the editors in any way, which is a dull, time-consuming and unenviable task, I tracked down the primary source being discussed at [190]. I think primary sources are of great importance to BLPs because they anchor discussions to their roots that otherwise might be prone to drift away in rhetoric. Blackstone says "and the husband was prohibited from using any violence toward his wife, aliter quad ad virum, ex causa regiminus et castigationis uxoris suae, licite et rationabiliter pertinet." I think the context also makes clear that "this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds." So we're dealing with semantic differences in the modern reaction to an old distinction that pretty much no longer exists, between moderate "correction" and real "violence". Wnt (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear. It is a fact that the origin of the phrase "rule of thumb" has nothing whatever to do with wife-beating. So to argue over whether or not wife beating or "moderate correction" was or was not acceptable is irrelevant to the article on the phrase 'rule of thumb' or to the basic fact that Sommers was correct to say it's a myth. The only relevant content for that article is the debate about the use and origin of the expression. Going into whether or not hitting women was or was not acceptable is beside the point for that article. What Blackstone says is also fairly clear. Wnt has excerpted a sentence from a detailed discussion in which Blackstone makes it clear that the Latin phrase refers to an "old law" that has now been superceded, so that "a wife may now have security against her husband". Of course the question of what "moderate correction" and "restraint" means may be debated. Any form of constraint obviously requires some kind of 'violence', so in that sense it is all about 'semantic differences'. Frankly, the detail of the exact interpretation of Blackstone seems so pedantic that I fail to see its relevance to either article other than a desire to nit-pick by finding 'error'. Paul B (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear. After our first and very unpleasant run-in, DHeyward followed me to one SPI and two articles where he reverted edits that had nothing to do with Blackstone. I removed unsourced information about a BLP subject, DHeyward showed up on the page for the first time and reverted my change, leaving a strange edit summary "That information isn't in his page. WP:NOTPAPER." Um, what? That information isn't in his page? Yes, I know. That's why I removed the unsourced information about a BLP subject. Then he followed me to another page where I attributed the POV to a 17th century jurist, added a quote from an academic paper and the specific court cases. DHeyward appeared (again, for the first time on the page) to revert my changes, writing something about "Judge Thumb" (?) in the the summary. What does that even mean, seriously? As you can see, DHeyward reverted edits that had nothing to do with Blackstone. They were perfectly reasonable edits, not the big bad misdeeds that he accuses me of. Hence, I've no idea why we're discussing Blackstone here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) DHeyward admits that he's following Sonicyouth around, so it seems like all we're determining here is whether Sonicyouth's behavior has been disruptive enough to justify it. I don't think that's the case at all, either in the edits about Sommers that started this or in subsequent edits or warnings. It's been established time and again that WP's containing of criticism of living people is not a BLP issue, and DHeyward should know better than to justify wikihounding according to his personal interpretation of BLP in this manner. DHeyward needs to stop following Sonicyouth and face sanctions if he does not stop. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese - All the edits refer to the same issue. Different pages on the same issue. That's not hounding. It's pursuing an argument about a specific issue with an editor who is raising the same issue in different pages. It's different from following round an editor and just undoing or criticising whatever they do. That's what hounding is. And it's no different from following an editor who is trying to add the same fringe material to several articles - in order to remove it from those articles. Of course whether Sonic's view is or is not fringe is another question - but the principle is the same. Even the Sockpuppet investigation was about the same issue - opinions of Sommers. Paul B (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No, different issues. He even shows up to revert my removal of the description "gay rights activist", a label that was unsourced and doesn't appear in the person's article. And the SPI was unrelated to the opinions of Sommers. It has to do with an editor who uses socks and IPs to edit four topic areas, one of which is pages related to "dissident feminists". I didn't say anything about Sommers' opinions in the SPI. So what was the reason for following me and derailing the SPI? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a false account of the diffs in your original post, which are all about Sommers' book Who Stole Feminism? and Rule of Thumb, an article you edited specifically because of claims in Who Stole Feminism?. The SPI is about an editor who supported DHeyward on, guess what?, the 'Who Stole Feminism issue. And yet you you present this as he "even followed me" to an SPI, as if it were utterly unrelated. Paul B (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't write anything about Sommers or "Who Stole Feminism?" on the rule of thumb article. The two edits that DHeyward reverted on the two pages didn't even have anything to do with Sommers or Blackstone. The edit on the first page concerned Lauritsen's "gay rights activist" label and the edit on the second page was the attribution of POV, addition of a quote from a journal and adding the court cases. The dispute over Kelly and Blackstone started after he followed me to the two pages. But his initial reverts removed or restored content that wasn't about Sommers. Um, the SPI is about an editor who abused socks. And he did not support DHeyward, at least not in most things. GamerGators even accuse the editor of being mean to Sommers and DHeyward. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• May I make a suggestion? If someone is going to file a wikihounding accusation at ANI, they need to compile a large number of convincing and case-making diffs, which the filer has not done, even after being requested to do so. And if someone is, in defense, going to accuse the filer of prior bad behavior, they should also compile a convincing number of diffs, which no one has adequately done in my opinion. So what we have here is involved parties firing shots at each other. The burden of proof one way or another should not be on the uninvolved admins or civilians reading this ANI. Uninvolved parties should not be forced to search all over Wikipedia mainspace, user talk pages, random contributions, SPIs, and so forth, and read minds on top of that, to reach even the most rudimentary understanding of the situation. So can we please ask both parties to leave each other alone and AGF, and then close this malformed (in my opinion) ANI? At least until the concerned parties feel it merits enough importance to actually do the legwork and present all of the relevant diffs for their case? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Two users edit warring

Popo51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Istrik ini dinamaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been reverting each other across at least two articles past 3RR and accusing each other of being sockpuppet accounts. Could something be done? Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This should reported at another location. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ankisur2's edits on Sharabha

On 13-Dec, IPs 117.201.103.102 and 117.201.103.18 were removing referenced material from the article Sharabha with the edit summary "this portion is a partisan shaivate view against vaishnavism and fan disharmony between the communities.also,this version of the incidents are controversial and not widely accepted." Both used the same edit summary verbatim. Later, 117.201.103.18 switched to "this article contains large portions describing desecration and mutilation of a revered form of Hindu God,which hurts religious sentiments and needs to be removed." After User:HJ Mitchell semi-protected the article, suddenly Ankisur2 reverting to the versions of the IPs [191] with a similar edit summary "Some parts of this article contain description of desecration of a popular hindu deity.Removing the portion of the article that is vivid,in addition to being contentious". Despite trying to engage with the editor on Talk:Sharabha#Removal_of_referenced_content and two warnings [192], the editor reverted again. The IPs could be sockpuppets of Ankisur2. Admins, please look into this. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Ankisur2 for 24 hours for edit warring. If you believe that it's sockpuppets (WP:DUCK evidence is clearly there) then make a request at WP:SPI about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky81682. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ankisur2 initiated. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Intervention/suggestion required on handling former admin Vejvančický

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.

---

Dear all, I need some intervention/suggestion on how to handle former admin Vejvančický. Post my editor review, where I had requested him to stop discussing me on Wikipediocracy if he wished me to answer his queries further, he seems to have been personally attacking me repeatedly. I've been ignoring him till now (and can continue to do so, if that's the suggestion here), but need your views on three particular instances:

• On 23rd August this year, Vejvančický wrote on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, "Please remove the admin user right from my account. I don't want to be in the same elevated rank with dishonest manipulators, such as User:Wifione".[194] My name was soon enough redacted from his statement by another editor. I felt Vejvančický's statement was an unnecessary personal attack, but ignored it. Others on the BN noticed this too.
• Later on, in a recent RfA, Vejvančický asked the candidate a question that ended as follows: "Would you trust administrator User:Wifione as your "confidant" after reading the review?"[195] Again, this was an unnecessarily constructed question, apparently intended to be a personal attack as I had asked a question to the nominee just some time before Vejvančický had. I ignored this too. Seeing that the candidate had my support, Vejvančický then proceeded to oppose the candidate giving the additional reasoning, "Also the presence of User:Wifione in the role of a polite and discreet behind-the-scene mediator is unacceptable to me. Find a better company next time.".[196]
• On 9th December, after I had congratulated Jimmy Wales for a recent award, Vejvančický immediately posted the following comment: "What a cordiality and friendly speech from someone who has been told "not to come back" (by Jimbo Wales himself), not long time ago! I admire your ability to forgive, User:Wifione. Btw, you don't work for Mr. Chaudhuri anymore? I mean, you don't manipulate those articles since it was exposed in your editor review and in other places ..."[197]
• For once, I did not ignore this and I immediately requested Vejvančický to remove the personal attack and allusion that I was working for some person. Today, Vejvančický refused to remove the personal attack, and wrote this as his reply to me on his talk page: "I've seen a lot of your "work" (many examples of your manipulation and subsequent super civil prevarication/obstruction) to be sure that I'm not mistaken, so I won't redact anything. The rest is at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione"

I don't know how else to request him to stop his personal attacks. I would have expected him to get blocked for such repeated comments, if he had been any other editor. Vejvančický does good work around the project and somehow, if someone knows him well and could convince him to stop making such statements, it'll be helpful. If not, I'll appreciate some sort of a ban on him either interacting with me, or discussing me like this. Any suggestions will be helpful. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comments
• Wifione, you haven't had much response here. One reason might be that there is rather a lot of material to wade through (I have, for the first time, read all the way through that editor review). This matter (and the various associated allegations) have at times over the past few years come to the attention of ArbCom. If you or Vejvančický are not satisfied with any resolution of the matter that is proposed here, and/or the community are unable to deal with this to your satisfaction, it may be time to raise it formally as an arbitration request to get an in-depth review of this and finally put things to rest one way or the other. I'm saying this as one of the outgoing arbitrators. For the avoidance of doubt, I would recuse from any case request that was made on this matter before 31 December 2014, and I do hope that you get sufficient responses here that it can be dealt with at a lower level of dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm waiting to see if Vejvančický will be replying. NE Ent 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth. Irrespective of whether Vejvančický or I go to ArbCom, I believe he should uphold some basic civil behaviour while editing around the project. That's the prime reason I'm here. If Vejvančický really wants to take this up at ArbCom, he can. But that shouldn't be justification for continuing to leave comments like he has started doing. I'm actually foxed by his behaviour, because in general, I find him really positive for the project and handling various issues whenever he can in a very practical manner. NE Ent, I too hope he does reply. He's been off the project since I've left a note on his talk page. Wifione ^Message 05:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wifione, I'm going to ask Vejvančický not to mention your name again in any way except if he wants to file a request for arbitration, or if he wants to reconcile with you somehow. This is essentially a one way IBAN, except that it's informal. I'd rather not ask the community for an IBAN because that's hard to remove and not too many people on this board have the patience to wade through all the evidence. What Vejvančický has been saying are personal attacks, even if it's all true, because he's not providing clear evidence to back it up. (Pointing to a giant pile of hay, and saying the needle-like evidence is in there somewhere, does not make the cut.) Of course, you should feel free to request arbitration if you don't like this result. Jehochman ^Talk 05:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• The option you offer is perfectly acceptable to me. I would myself prefer this (as I had suggested in my original post above) than a formal IBAN. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 05:41, 14 December 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:75.38.235.202 - block required

• 75.38.235.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• DeDe4Truth (talk · contribs)

Obvious sock is obvious, same pattern of edits to City-Data. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Report Binksternet for harassment

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.

---

Binksternet has accused me of sock puppetry and has taken it into his hands to vandalise a page that I have created can some one block him as he is acting unprofessional and quiet childlike to be honest R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

R&B and Hip hop Music, it would be good if you stopped committing copyright violations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This morning's coffee-and-Wikipedia experience for me has been chock full of socks. The report here is by the new editor "R&B and Hip hop Music" whose first-ever edit was a continuation of focus by blocked sockpuppets Rihanna-RiRi-fan and Mstique, not to mention the IPs 5.81.225.188 and 5.81.225.225, all of which are socks of MariaJaydHicky. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Plus I had the doubtful pleasure of tangling with long-term disruptor HarveyCarter, unrelated to the above, in his new sock account PaddyDaly. And to top it off I was faced with new edits by blocked sockpuppeteer Chowkatsun9 who continually finds new Hong Kong IPs to use at the Yoshiki (musician) biography (and many others). So whatever constructive additions I might have planned for today have been set aside for the purpose of stopping these various socks. Time for another pot of coffee... Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

suggest close with no action. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You took it out on my article which I found as a right liberty R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If only to save time, I wouldn't object to a WP:BOOMERANG block. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This sock has been blocked and tagged; all that's left is checkuser for sleepers. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 14 December 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.

Problems with User:Huon with reference to Ambassadors of Ghana to Russia

• Huon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Banks Elliott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Administrators,

I am having problems with user 'Houn': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Huon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huon I am exasperated with this persons continual disruptive interference of my page on "Ambassador John Banks Elliott". He has on numerous times removed the contents of the article, disrupting the flow between myself and the editor I prefer to work with on this Article. His persistent personal attacks and defamatory innuendos bordering on harassment of the subject has forced me to put in this complaint.

I am having to delete his messages from my email inbox received from (watch list). I have also had to change my password on Wikipedia as I think he has hacked my account. I will kindly request that you prevent him from editing my page, my user page, my talk page and the talk page of Ambassador Elliott. In one of his messages 'Houn' accuses Ambassador Elliott of whitewashing his story and being the worst Ambassador ever. I do not know where 'Houn' is going with this, I definitely do not have the directions for him. He has also left several messages for me on the talk page of Joe Decker.

The copies of photographs, files that I posted are from Ambassador Elliott's personal collection from the sixties. He handed them to me to make copies for his Wikipedia page. I have been using these photographs and posting them to and fro on the web. The later photos taken on his Birthdays were taken by myself with my BlackBerry.

This article is written with honesty as recounted by Ambassador Elliott himself. It is an assemblage of his Ambassadorial-ship in Moscow. It is not everything he told me that I entered in the article as this may cause embarrassment to certain parties.

I would like to quote what Ambassador Elliott said at the end of my talk with him for this article, he said, "I am resolute and hold no grudges towards any persons or institutions that are inequitable towards me or my achievements". Yes he knows he might have enemies scattered here and there, what they do, what they say, what they write about is their prerogative. What he says is his choice.

I have a feeling 'Houn' thinks that Ambassador Elliott is dead. What he is doing is fighting with himself. I have asked him to kindly replace all of the editions, files and references he removed because I have not yet finished with the edit and will need to adjust some lines in the article, my request was to no avail. Instead he warned me about trying to replace the article.

I would appreciate it if I could hear from you the soonest. Kind regards, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of what you feel he did wrong. Also, I suggest you read WP:COI, going by your username. I notified Huon of this discussion, as required. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 16:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, we'd appreciate evidence of the "hack". Another good thing to read is WP:OWN. Finally, if what you're saying is true, you can't use what Ambassador Elliot gives you, as any information must be verifiable by any reader to reliable sources. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what Huon said [198] here? He's quoting someone else on the "worst ambassador" remark. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dorothyelliott and Huon: is an experienced editor and administrator on English Wikipedia as @Origamite: suggested that you should read the policy Conflict of interest and Ownership of articles. Another thing, you should support your edits with reliable sources such as articles published in the newspaper, books etc. and also maintain Neutral point of view. Just don't be panic Cheers and Continue Contributing. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the accusation that I hacked anybody's account is baseless, and I don't even have a clue of how to do so beyond guessing that the password is "love", "sex", "secret" or "god".

Secondly, the emails Dorothyelliott had to delete probably come from me commenting on her talk page, once notifying her of the explanation I left for reverting her and once commenting on her uploads' copytight status, giving her advice on how to avoid the free images' deletion, advice she has not yet followed.

Thirdly, I have never edited Dorothyelliott's user page, and there's nothing wrong with my edits to either the article on John Banks Elliott or its talk page. If Dortothyelliott wants me to stay off her user talk page, I'll do so (except for required notifications), but I don't think that will help.

Fourthly, as Origamite points out, the unflattering comments on Elliott's work in Moscow are from one of the sources Dorothyelliott cited in her expansion of the article - in fact I'd say the best of the sources she cited, though she didn't cite it for what it actually says. Huon (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see posts from ‘Houn’ which I am sure is accessible to all

Posted on Joe Decker's talk page: Huon (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

My Response: Dorothyelliott (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Posted on Joe Decker's talk page: Huon (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

My Response: Dorothyelliott (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Posted on Ambassador Elliott’s talk page: Huon (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Posted on Dorothyelliott’s talk page: Huon (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me be blunt here: You have no idea whether what you say about the copyright for the Moscow photos is true or not. To my knowledge the Russian authorities have released some official images under free licenses (that's where we got this image of Kim Jong-il from), but I don't know whether they automatically do so for all images, or whether the Soviets already did so, and obviously neither do you. For the images you took yourself, you should add a note on the corresponding file pages (such as File:Ambassador John Banks Elliott 9 February 2011.jpg) that you created those yourself and explicitly release them under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify them for any purpose, including commercial purposes, for example by adding {{Self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the page. Huon (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to be rude to Houn, but the haphazard manner in which he jumped in on the expansion to the stub put me of guard. I worked for months on the article going back and forth to England to talk to Ambassador Elliott, and then having it deleted, really exasperated me. If he had used a different approach, like suggesting he would like to help me, then perhaps I would have accepted.

I would like to make it clear before I continue that, Africa is a second largest continent in the world and not a country. When referring to specific topic vis-à-vis a country, that country should be specified. References and files that I did not include in the article only make interesting reading for those who have secondary opinions of Africans.

The sources cited are things Ambassador Elliott talked about and was involved with, this is not something plucked out of air. The article is strictly about his Ambassadorial ship as President Nkrumah’s Envoy to Moscow and of some of the contributions, he made. It is rather unfortunate that Houn should think so little of envoys as to say, “he was ambassador and did ambassadorial stuff". Julie Hessler's article, which Houn uses as his source for deletion, should be read in its entirety and understood. Ms. Hessler ends her article with “Whether the virulent racism that they describe had indeed become characteristic of Soviet universities by the second half of the 1960s, and whether, as at least two serious students of related subjects have suggested, it subsequently declined, must remain subjects for future research”. http://www.cairn.info/zen.php?ID_ARTICLE=CMR_471_0033

Yes, bad things were happening to African students all over the world, yet, those wishing to take advantage of the education offered achieved goals that they otherwise would not have had access to. I sent Ms. Hessler an email asking her to respond on Ambassador Elliott’s page or directly by email to me. In addition, Houn used a referenced statement from her article as a reason for deletion. (“Thompson, Ghana’s Foreign Policy..., 166, 274-275; and see also his remark about Elliot as “[Nkrumah’s] worst ambassadorial appointment in this period”) I will suggest Houn purchase the book and read it fully. Not all websites are as kind as Wikipedia to allow free access to their documents. Most Archived material of historical importance can be accessed by registering and paying a minimum fee, most readers are aware of that.

With reference to Rt. Rev. John Orfeur Anglionby, Bishop of Accra. The article is not about him so I need not elaborate on him specifically in this article. However, I will say, he was mentor to Ambassador Elliott at a time during his educational development. The photograph is for those who do not know who Bishop Anglionby is. You will notice in the photograph, the Bishop is wearing the ABUABU Cross, moulded in 1928. This cross is in possession of Ambassador Elliott given to him by the Bishop’s sister after the death of her brother. I am working on the story of the ABUABU Cross and its source for another group and will add a ref. to the Ambassadors references when complete.

I will look through the references provided to see if some were relevant, and act accordingly. I will also suggest Houn take time to look at some of the references, newsreels in which Ambassador Elliott appears, read the books mentioned some of which could be purchased digitally and of course not forgetting the newspaper columns. DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Dorothyelliott (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can I note that while everything said to Dorothyelliott, both here and on her talk page, is perfectly correct in terms of Wikipolicy, I found the tone of some of the comments a little bitey at times. By all appearances, this is someone who is trying to improve the encyclopedia by expanding an article about a person she considers to be significant, so perhaps a gentler approach might have been more effective? (Unless I'm missing some indication of intransigence and unwillingness to follow policy on her part.) BMK (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine and all but comments like "my article" and "the people I want to work with" are not appropriate regardless of how long the editor has been here (and six months is sufficient time to me). This kind of expansion with very little sourcing leaves a lot of work to other people. Houn has done nothing wrong in asking that someone doesn't just dump pages of text and a scattering of sources in the middle. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

At 134 edits over 6 1/2 months, 23 of them to the article in question (her only article edits), this editor is clearly a tyro and should have been treated as such. After all, none of us were born with Wikiculture genetically-encoded, we all needed to learn it. There's no question that everything she was told was correct, it was only the tone of it that was problematic. BMK (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the Wikipedia: Public domain to my attention.

I have read it thoroughly and have visited the applicable links. I would like to bring your attention to the guidelines on Wikipedia: Public domain. Where it states that Wikipedia is primarily subject to U.S. Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain I will also suggest you see Wikipedia: Copyright situations by country. To all of you who deleted files with reference to Ambassador John Banks Elliott “Your apologies are accepted” now, please replace them so that I can edit them accordingly.Dorothyelliott (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

copying comment from Huon's talk page I'm sorry, I still don't believe you understand. We can't use the files because they might have been subject to US copyright, so they had to be deleted. If they were kept and some Russians who had the copyright sued, they could shut down Wikipedia. The files are not yet in the public domain, as even if the people who took the photos died that day not enough time has passed. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) @Dorothyelliott: I'm afraid you still don't understand. Under US copyright law, everything that falls under the purview of copyright law is automatically copyrighted when it is created. It does not have to be published, and it doe snot need to carry a copyright notice. There are exceptions for things that were created under older versions of the copyright law, so establishingwhen something was created and who created it is vital to determine whether or not something is not copyrighted and therefor is in the public domain. To post an image on Wikipedia, one must have positive proof that something is not copyrighted, or that it has been licensed in a way that's compatible with our own license. Without that positive proof, no image will be accepted. One cannot assume that an image is in the public domain, one cannot take the vague memories of the people involved as evidence, one must know that the image is PD or properly licensed.

Unfortunately, there's not much scope for getting around those rules, and when there is it's about people who are dead for whom free images cannot be found, or material that has been widely released for publicity purposes (and those are still contentious with some editors who take a hard line on our copyright policy, which you'll find at WP:NCC). The bottom lime is, if you don't have some kind of documentation which you can use to show an image's PD or licensed status, you're not going to be able to use it here, no matter how often you discuss it. BMK (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of User_talk:Don't_Touch_Me_Again

I have just deleted User talk:Don't Touch Me Again (only one edit on the page) - I'm unsure if RevDelete or Oversight is applicable since the person mentioned is not living. Second opinion welcomed! -- Chuq (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with deleting this, but reverting and rev-deleting would also have worked. The website they linked to is a blog. I have done some other clean-up and put a note on the user talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Constant disruptive edits/falsifying sources/spreading Pakistani nationalism

Billybowden311 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is since the moment he/she joined Wikipedia busy with making a huge amount of disruptive unsourced edits.[[199]][[200]][[201]], [[202]][[203]][[204]], falsifying sources,[[205]][[206]], and spreading Pakistani nationalism,[[207]][[208]][[209]][[210]][[211]], with a clear agenda mostly on West Asian (Turkish/Iranian), Afghan, and Indian-related topics while promoting a pro-Pakistan stance on everything. He has been notified of this before,[[212]], but he obviously doesn't seem to care much. Look at his edits (this is just a fraction) and then at the other thousands of other Wikipedia "users" who make an account to do the same. 94.210.203.230 (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Aliyah

The discussion about serial vandalism at Aliyah was closed, without any reply to my question. My concern is that the repeated alteration of statistics, over 1000+ edits for more than a year, renders the entire article completely compromised. Since there seems to be no possibility of just rolling back the bad edits, from scores of IPs, I propose to revert to what appears to be the last good edit before this misbehaviour commenced, by Emmette Hernandez Coleman on 3 October 2013. This may also revert a few good edits, but almost every edit since then has been unsourced, and seemingly vandalistic, alteration of statistics. Would this be acceptable? And if not, how else can we restore the integrity of this article? RolandR (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What you could do is compare that version with the current version and see if there's any well-sourced additions that you think should be retained. Please remember to check for copy vio. Here is your diff: Diff of Aliyah. Another alternative would be to leave the prose alone, and copy the table from the old revision, as that's the section of the article that they were tampering with. I think I would go with the second solution. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. Just going out; when I get back to the screen, I will look at the possibility of doing that. RolandR (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Just-auto-confirmed user Ashurbanippal (talk · contribs) reverted to the dubious version. I agree with Roland that many of the numbers in the table are highly dubious. There is actually no reason to use anything but the official numbers compiled by the Israeli Bureau of Statistics. Zero^talk 09:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Masusimaru

User:Masusimaru has spent his whole time on WIkipedia for the last half year repeatedly edit warring on the Alexander Suvorov article. He continues to remove information about Suvorov's Armenian ancestry despite academic sources supporting it. And just recently, he has impersonated a bot and accused me of vandalism. Not only is wrongly accusing someone of vandalism a WP:PA, but Masusimaru has also now just violated WP:SIGFORGE. I have no problem with him and don't want to see him blocked, but I would like to request that Masusimaru no longer be allowed to edit this article. --Steverci (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that bot has been active for years... since 2006?!?!? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I am kind of curious myself on where he get it from. Even so, the point is he pretended to have blocking abilities by signature forging which is forbidden. --Steverci (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think it's a signature forgery so much as a copy-paste from some other userpage. See the date in the sig. I looked back at the bot's contribs and found that the only place it could have come from is User:Adam1213/autowarn3 (only edit with that timestamp that was signed). The claim of blocking rights is due to previous phrasing of {{test3}} (which itself seems to be deprecated in favor of {{uw-test3}}). Anyway, Masusimaru's conduct at the article appears to be edit warring. So a stern warning is probably appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm kinda new to Wikipedia and might have used a wrong tool to warn user of inappropriate behaviour ) that tool seemed to help me with warning syntax but somehow spoiled the signature. I warned administrators here, I apologize if I did it incorrectly. But I'd like to stop speculations and fake sources being to articles in apparently biased manner. Masusimaru (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OR

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.

---

Mztourist is keep retaining details that contain possible OR. He refused to give any source to prove it when I asked him to do so.Dino nam (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that it looks like OR and requires a source, but you've already put this up at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, so I'm closing this. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 15 December 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:Dandaman620

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:Dandaman620 continues to vandalise the article Tobias Lister, despite warnings. I've logged it here, but would like a speedy resolution, due to the BLP issues this person is creating. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Now resolved. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:56, 15 December 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.

108.81.128.153 and genre 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.

---

I noticed 108.81.128.153 (talk · contribs) changed musical style genres in an infobox here despite a comment saying "discuss first". I thought I'd drop them a note advising them this, but I then discovered their talk page is full of warnings and previous blocks. Should we go for a stronger sanction this time per WP:HEAR? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months this time. When it comes to IPs (especially in this case where they are very likely to be used by multiple people) blocks of increasing duration are the best we can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 15 December 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.

Do-ocracy

Could someone with access to deleted revisions check the previous versions of Do-ocracy to see whether the new version is a recreation of the article which has been deleted twice already, or a new article? The whole thing appears to be a cut-and-paste of this page in any case, but it would be handy to know more background before deciding how this ought to be handled - I don't like to tag an article just created by a brand new user for deletion if I can help it. (The phrase itself seems to be a neologism created by the American right-wing fringe, and presumably any deletion debate would attract a swarm of cranks, so quite aside from the WP:BITE angle I don't relish an AFD.) Mogism (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• It hasn't been through a deletion discussion (the two deletions were via PROD and CSD) so it will, unfortunately, have to go down that route this time. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Since it's not doing any real harm, I'll give it a couple of weeks to see if anyone improves it. It's technically a copyvio, but only due to lack of attribution as the site it's pasted from is CC-by-SA. Mogism (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I have added the required attribution. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to ask if the license is actually permissible. I notice that it is a BY-SA 1.0 license, and 1.0 licenses with the ShareAlike condition do not include compatibility with later versions. That is, anything that uses a work under BY-SA 1.0 must be available under BY-SA 1.0, not 2.0 or 3.0. It is also availabe under GFDL 1.3, but if I'm not mistaken the CC license is the one that is required. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm going to delete it as soon as I hit "save". Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-11-17/GFDL 1.3 clearly reminds us that GFDL 1.3 material had to have been added to a participating wiki before 2 August 2009 in order to be relicensed as cc-by-sa-3.0, and Wikipedia:Copyrights states that GFDL-only content may no longer be added. Since you note that cc-by-sa-1.0 is incompatible with 3.0, there's no way to keep it, regardless of whether we want to or not. Viral licensing: got to love how wonderful it is, how it so greatly contributes to our goal of building an encyclopedia, how it can force us to delete content just because the proponents updated the license a little. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

036386536a (copyvios and machine-translated articles)

A while back I noticed 036386536a (talk · contribs) (and 74.61.193.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who seems to be the same person editing while logged out) has been posting poorly formatted, machine-translated articles, usually from the Italian Wikipedia (see [213]). This is problematic both for copyright reasons (since he fails to give the attribution mandated by the CC-BY-SA licence) and because, well, machine translated text is generally crap, and routinely posting huge chunks of it here creates more problems than it solves. The user has also been contributing a lot of unsourced or copyright-infringing images (most of which have already been deleted on copyright grounds).

I reached out to the user several times on his talk page (as have, I observed, many other users, both there and elsewhere—see for example User talk:WikiDan61#The House of Landi and most of the following 13 sections on that page). However, he's continued the problematic uploads and unattributed machine translation dumps. I'm not even sure if he understands or has read my messages; I've only gotten one or two direct responses, though he tends to post messages in the oddest places (such as at the very top of his user talk page, or in edit summaries) which makes it impossible to tell whom or what he's responding to. He doesn't seem to have understood or complied with User:WikiDan61's instructions on contributing copyrighted material. I'm thinking that neither English nor Italian is his native language.

I'm not sure at this point if further discussion is going to help, or if a competence/copyvio block is required. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't tolerate this many copyvios in general; I don't see why we should tolerate them in this case, just because they're unattributed modifications of cc-by-sa content. I've indef-blocked him on these grounds alone. It might have been a good idea to be a little more lenient if machine-translation dumping had been the only problem (maybe a short block and a message of "do it again, and it will be indefinite"), but repeated copyright infringements are intolerable. Together with the machine translation, I doubt his competency, too. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention, when he broke a template. WP:CIR applies, I think. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 23:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk page block

Hey there - 149.151.85.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is currently blocked for ~2 weeks for vandalism/inserting false information into articles. Since the block, the editor has continued to remove the shared IP banner on their talk page. Could we get a talk page block implemented? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor has restored link to an attack page

User:BezosibnyjUA has restored a link to an attack page.[214] He/she is aware that such attack pages are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please can the link be removed and action be taken to stop him/her restoring it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The linked page is (1) in Ukrainian, and (2) currently blank as far as I can tell. You're going to have to give us a bit more information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

From the history, it was very recently removed by another user Ravensfire (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this page, User:BezosibnyjUA is a sock of User:Rkononenko. --Taivo (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This [215] is the content in question on the Ukrainian wiki. It is in English and clearly directed at influencing the English, not the Ukrainian Wikipedia, and it shows a battleground mentality and an overt attempt at organizing a POV campaign that, if posted on en-wp, would certainly lead to immediate sanctions here. The identity between BezosibnyjUA and Rkononenko is clear and self-declared [216]. Rkononenko is not currently blocked, but was blocked for 3 months in mid-2012, when BzosibnyjUA started editing here to evade that block [217]. Moreover, Rkononenko was warned at the time that he was lucky the block wasn't already indef, and that he would soon be indef-blocked if he continued his behaviour [218]. As he has clearly done just that through his new account. I'm going ahead and indef-blocking both accounts now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark Gorenstein page

Hello: I am in the midst of edit wars on the page of Mark Gorenstein with two anonymous IP addresses based in the Ukraine, IP addresses 93.183.216.73 and 176.8.54.46. The anonymous editors have continually reverted edits in order to paste directly the biographical text from Mark Gorenstein's webpage here. This is witnessed from such edits as the following:
(a) 11:26, 21 October 2014 (93.183.216.73)
(b) 10:14, 27 October 2014‎ (176.8.54.46)
(c) 07:35, 3 November 2014‎ (93.183.216.73)
I left a comment on the talk page for the Mark Gorenstein article that such pasting of the biography of a subject on a subject's wikipedia page is improper practice and a conflict of interest. Neither party has responded or commented on the talk page, but simply re-edited the page with the repetitive pasting of Gorenstein's website biography. Given the past behaviour from both IP addresses, it is clear that they will continue their practices. I fully expect that a re-edit to paste, again, the biographical text from Gorenstein's page will come from one of those two addresses within days of this note. I am afraid that the only route is to block those two IP addresses from editing this article. Thanks for reading, DJRafe (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The way to handle that is to post a short description at WP:RFPP to request that Mark Gorenstein be semiprotected because some IPs are repeatedly posting a copyright violation (and post the link to the original). Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to have been any IP activity on this page since 3 November, which indicates page protection is not necessary at this point. Please report at WP:RFPP if the problem reoccurs.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Previously blocked sockpuppet 113.190.46.130 editing again

113.190.46.130 was blocked on 14 Sep 14 for 3 months as a sockpuppet of MiG29VN, a user which has persistently used a range of IPs to edit whilst banned (8 separate sockpuppet investigations since March 2014, the last of which concluded only several days ago and resulted in 9 different IPs being exposed as socks and most temporarily blocked - pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN/Archive). The block on this particular IP account (113.190.46.130) now appears to have expired and the sockpuppet has of course started editing again [219] in exactly the same fashion as MiG29VN and their various IPs. Request IP re blocked as it is clearly still being used as a sockpuppet. Pls let me know if more evidence is required and I will provide it, just hoping to get this sorted without having to write War and Peace. Thanks in advance for any assistance or advice. Anotherclown (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Obviously the same person, and I've blocked this address for 3 months (the same length as their other addresses are being blocked for) Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ToQ100gou off-site contact

Last month, ToQ100gou (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for disruption while constantly logging out of his account to do so. He has just contacted me on an off-site forum where he decided to register in order to contact me (and also because it's our shared general interest). What is the protocol with dealing with this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia have a protocol for what you do off-Wikipedia? Ignore him. Or not. Your choice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean how to treat his message because it's a request to be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, he still has talk page access from what I can see. He should be requesting it via the unblock template, no? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong, I've emailed you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:László Vazulvonal of Stockholm

László Vazulvonal of Stockholm continues to add unsourced information about ethnic groups into WP:BLP articles, such as this one, for example. I have raised this several times on their talkpage, but they continue to add the unsourced info. Appreciate some help with this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see (I follow only fencers' biographies) the information LVS adds is pretty redundant. Reka Zsofia Lazăr-Szabo for instance was already categorised in Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent; there's also a mention of her Hungarian ethnicity in the text, although unsourced. LVS' edits are in good faith: his information is accurate, and I'll attempt to source his edits. The people whose articles we're talking about bear obvious Hungarian names, so I can only suppose he's baffled by Lugnuts' requests for sources. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

IP editor repeatedly inserting POV material into Somnophilia page (part of sexology). Please protect.

Hi, folks.

An IP editor has twice edited the Somnophilia page to add a POV that is not contained in the sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somnophilia&diff=638225106&oldid=637664695

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somnophilia&diff=638361069&oldid=638245653

I have reverted the changes, explaining the problem in the diff comments:

I very much appreciate that the people are generally appropriately called victims, but the RS did not include that POV, and WP:NPOV requires that we not add our own.

Undid revision 638361069 by 68.108.11.220 (talk) Same issue as previously.

I think page-protection would be appropriate. — James Cantor (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If the source did not say "victim", maybe it's not a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Salmazanaty

Salmazanaty appears to be here to spread hoax content and commit subtle vandalism. Deleted articles Black Wolf Records discography and List of Black Wolf Records artists & songs were entirely made up of fabricated content, listing some artists who have been dead for years. (Sandy Denny, who died in 1978) for instance. User has since moved on to create List of boy bands, which contains a mix of good-hand content, along with bad-hand content like the addition of Alvin & the Chipmunks (a fictional cartoon chipmunk boy band), All-4-One, which does not feature Ne-Yo, Brian McKnight, Keith Sweat and Velamero Castellero. Here they change JC Chasez's birth year from 1976 (correct) to 1982 (incorrect). This edit is also questionable, where the user adds Sia Furler to a list of members of female band Bond, though there is no mention of her in the Bond article, there's no mention of Bond in the Sia article, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up any relationship. I'm not convinced the user is here to build an encyclopedia--seems more that they are here to commit subtle vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked some random diffs and the first two additions I googled for returned no relevant hits: List of music festivals addition, List of all-female bands addition. Stopped digging at that point to concur with Cyphoidbomb about WP:NOTHERE. May be worth mentioning that I've previously I encountered him/her disruptively adding One Direction-related content to various lists, e.g. adding One Direction Posse to list of hip hop groups, adding its members to List of R&B musicians: 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I should add one other piece of information. The user added "Velamero Castellero" as a member of All-4-One, but if you Google that name, the only hit is the List of Boy Bands article. Hoax. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets of AfricaTanz

Hi. I'd like to report this IP address 75.34.101.43. I suspect it belongs to the blocked User:AfricaTanz. I had initiated two SPIs against it on September and a week ago. It appears this user has some sort of vendetta against me. He has been wikihounding my edits; most recently at 1, 2 and 3. Further evidences of this past behaviour are included in the SPI links above. The user also most recently commented on a discussion that I was involved in; thus being a further evidence of hounding of my edits. Out all the available discussions out there to participate; it chose one that i was involved in.

The IP has now resorted to labeling at least two IP addresses as my suspected sockpuppets: 1st IP and 2nd IP. This is a false accusation. You may ask a checkuser to verify my assertion (if need be). The past two investigations resulted in just page protection and no further action was taken. Can I please request you at least to de-link myself from these absurd accusation. It seems AfricaTanz is here to cause disruption against myself. I would suggest a range block, if possible. The user has been informed about this ANI at the reported IP address. Thank you for your time. Ali Fazal (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bullying again...

Hi, I'm sysop from Spanish Wikipedia. Few weeks ago I notified about a racist incident from ELreydeEspana. He was blocked today in Spanish Wikipedia because bad behavior and anti-Latin American insults (also sexual threats against non-Spanish users). Few minutes ago he threated me in Spanish language in the Discussion page of English Wikipedia.

Also, in Spanish Wikipedia the sysops discovered that ElReydeEspana is a sockpuppet from others users Halias 23, Luli 240 and Maria 123456 (all expelled from Spanish Wikipedia per vandalism and confirmed via checkuser). It's very difficult for me resisting all these racist insults because the Spanish Wikipedia sysops we blocked him because he violated blatantly the rules in that project. --Taichi (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll just say something: Halias 23 was my original account but I lost my password and I had to make another account, but linked to Halias 23, Other accounts are not mine, they are probably some other users sharing the the IP of them with mine, Thank you for your attention (ELreydeEspana) 20:05 15/12 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a basic breach of WP:CIVIL. We cannot do much about the breach of block, since it is only enacted in the Spanish Wikipedia. But they should be warned. Lor^Chat 02:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ELreydeEspana, we generally don't tolerate incivility, especially when it's a continuation of a dispute somewhere else. This is the warning Lor suggests: keep it up, and one of us admins will levy a block here too, including potentially one that goes as long as your current block at es:wp. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen had levied a warning previously for their previous post on their user page. It was removed and a warning left by Bishonen and Drmies. Blackmane (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ELreydeEspana (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Promotion of a pvt company on Aurangabad article

I believe this user User:Zeeshanshoeb is promoting a company with which he is associated in te article Aurangabad, Maharashtra. The user has time and again reverted my edits without explaining why. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies, namely Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelroy (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor for 72 hours due to promotion and because he's been edit warring without trying to discuss anything on the talk page. I also left some information about the basic policies (notability, sourcing, COI, etc) and warned him that continuing to add the information without trying to discuss anything or follow policy could lead to a permanent block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey pony fans

Some of us are real pony fans

Got a question for you all--do we really need redirects for every single My Little Pony character? Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is consistently backlogged, and it's a veritable corral right now. I know redirects are cheap, but it all adds up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I thought your edit summary was "Hey ponyo fans". So disappointed! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry. Brohoof! Drmies (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Paw!...shameless plug in worth it! Lor^Chat 00:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Damn Bronies Lor^Chat 23:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. Surely someone's written a script for one-click redirect creation of AFC entries? --NE2 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've created some redirects at:

• Bubbles (My Little Pony)
• Ember (My Little Pony)
• Fiesta Flair (My Little Pony)
• Fizzy Pop (My Little Pony)
• Flitter Flutter (My Little Pony)
• Filthy Rich (My Little Pony)

Hope this clears out some of the backlog Lor^Chat 00:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Im wondering if the list can be trimmed down, I do not think the addition of ponies that have been in one episode for example are all that notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

not going to ask why Knowledgekid87 knows anything about what happens in an episode Lor^Chat 03:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Im an anime and manga fan NOT a brony lol Idk, I have seen fan made lists on Wikipedia before, we don't need to include every single pony here unless it is notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

eh, I'm a furry and I don't really care more or less if your a Brony or not Point taken. Lor^Chat 03:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Head count, how many people on this site watch My Little Pony? But maybe this is overkill. Do we need these many redirects? Epicgenius (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of us around. Redirects shouldn't be much of a problem. As long as they're not creating articles for every minor character. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, so there is no harm in having such to be hits on search terms. I'm not sure if we need the character pages at that much detail - that's a job that the wikias are better at. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that these are particularly useful redirects, because of the parenthetical disambiguations and that they aren't linked from anywhere, really. But, since they've been created already, oh well. ansh666 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone would type "name (My Little Pony)" into the search box. Can we send them all to RfD or would that be disruptive? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The parenthetical stuff shows up in the list of suggestions that pops up when you're entering text in the search field. It's helpful for navigation that way, not because anyone would ever type out the entire string exactly. Try it with "Fizzy pop". __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not really my point though - if these redirects did not exist, what are the odds of somebody typing "fizzy pop" into the search box and thinking "dang and blast it, I want the MLP character not the drink!" Quite small, I'd imagine. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'll weigh in here as a MLP:FIM fan. (I guess that makes me a pegasister.) I've actually used some of these redirects (specifically Filthy Rich (My Little Pony)) and I've looked at some of the characters on the page. I do think that some of the detail is a bit overkill, but if the characters are on the page then a redirect isn't a terrible idea. However at the same time, I don't know that we need every character that has been in any of the various TV shows or films to be in the list. That's a totally different discussion and one that will likely end with a bit of a battle, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your a My little pony Fan? Ohhhhhhh!..burn...Are my jokes good yet? Lor^Chat 06:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

---

Users Yerevantsi and EtienneDolet are vandalizing the web page mentioned above by continuous deleting the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 December 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.

• See my comment on section above. Squinge (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruption by a single-purpose user and an IP

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

---

Fmelikov (talk · contribs), a user who hasn't edited a single article since January 2013 suddenly came back in late November to disrupt the Lavash article. He repeatedly adds unsourced, POV worded sentences to the article intro and continues to edit war. In addition, he (its almost surely the same person) uses an IP (85.132.14.85 (talk · contribs)) to edit war. He makes nonconstructive edits such as removing Armenia as the place of origin from the infobox, when UNESCO has recently named Lavash an Armenian representative of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. One of his edit summaries reads: "Lavash's place of origin is Azerbaijan. However to avoid needless disputes, I put down Middle East as Middle East" [220] Armenia is usually not considered, politically, part of the Middle East, nor is Azerbaijan (which he claims—without providing any sources—to be the place of origin of lavash). He was warned by me earlier today [221] and by another user [222], who also filed an SPI (which probably is unnecessary).

I came to ANI only because my request of temporary protection was declined and I was told to try this board.[223] --Երևանցի ^talk 22:31, 16 December 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.

• Fmelikov appears to be continuing the edit war as an IP. Squinge (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 62.217.151.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for block evasion. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

Threatening to Sue and Kill Wikipedia editors

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.

---

With this edit [224] Abhishek1747 has threatend to kill wikipedia editors. VViking_TalkEdits 13:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've advised the editor that he needs to withdraw the threats.[225] I'm waiting to see how he responds to that. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Without depreciating the value of C.Fred's response, I consider the combination of a legal threat and a death threat towards a specific individual to be sufficient grounds for an immediate and indefinite block, and have therefore applied one. I'm also passing the link on to the emergency team. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Good quick block. Exactly as it should be. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I need to prevent someone from hijacking our Wikipedia page to post inappropriate material, how can I do this?

Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia, in fact I inherited this job two days ago. My question is how can I block someone from hijacking our Wikipedia page in order to post inappropriate content? Our page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report. Any help would be important to us.

Thank you

Nigel Covington Editor-in-Chief National Report — Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelCovington85 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Posting relevant COI information on users' talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You cannot block anyone from posting, only administrators or higher can do that. Moreover, the information posted is sourced. There's nothing "inappropriate" about it that I can see. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. It's not "your" Wikipedia page even though it's about your organization. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Query: Does WP:UAA apply to impersonating a fake person? Bobby Tables (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not. We have a User:Harry Potter, a User:Lord Voldemort, and many others with fictional names. Your username is okay. --Jakob (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to the previous section. OP there might be a case of WP:UAA. I know my username is fine, I've been using it here for a long time :) Bobby Tables (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User ELreydeEspana not being Civil and making threats

G'day Admins (And non-admins that patrol here). Recently i have gotten a message on my Talk page about ELreydeEspana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making at threat at Taichi. I suggest you translate it with Google translate but from me translating it it is clearly a threat of some sort. Lor^Chat 06:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: ELreydeEspana has now removed evidence from my talk page. It has been reverted, but i find this as more evidence. Lor^Chat 06:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that it's worth anything--since I expect this has already been figured out--but his threats are that "you're going to pay" and something about putting "you" on "his blacklist". (I can sort of read Spanish.) ekips39 14:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please run a search for "ELreydeEspana" on this page. You'll see an earlier thread on this page in which he came close to getting blocked. Not having learned his lesson, he's consequently been blocked 48 hours and been told that recidivism will likely result in an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Request IP Block user:68.151.44.151

user:68.151.44.151 has been repeatedly vandalizing Danielle Smith since last night. There is a rapidly developing story, the subject of the article is rumoured to be changing party allegiances. The IP user appears likely to be a disgruntled supporter of the Wildrose Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleking (talk • contribs) 16:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits, while unsourced about a living person, are not vandalism. This looks like a content dispute with BLP overtones. This should likely go to WP:ANEW, but since the IP only got a 3RR warning just before this report, it won't get any traction yet. That said, the article is on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is vandalism, pure and simple. The content this user is adding is so absurd that it has become the subject of social media (‏@jamiedirom Oh, Wikipedia. #wrp #ableg #pcaa pic.twitter.com/zjR5e0q3sZ). A block is in order. Sunray (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, what makes it vandalism is not the speculation that Danielle Smith is rumoured to be joining the Progressive Conservative Party, that is a fact Danielle Smith among Wildrose MLAs crossing to Alberta PC party. It is rather that she is "deputy premier," and has engaged in a "traitorous defection." Sunray (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile adding Wildrose Party, Danielle Smith, Rob Anderson (politician), Gary Bikman, Jason Hale (politician), Blake Pedersen, and Jeff Wilson (politician) to a watchlist, as they will all be likely vandalism targets over the next week or so. Paleking (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP's edits look unhelpful, premature, and contain BLP violations (with that unsourced "treasonous" bit). That said, semi-protecting the page would probably be the fastest way eliminate the disruption from this IP. It's obviously a breaking story that might attract similar editors, not an "absurdity" from a single mind. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Sunray (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would have concurred as well. My request to semi-prot was declined, with advice to request an IP Block. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Danielle_Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleking (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Agree with what was said at RFPP: semiprotection isn't appropriate when just one person's causing problems. If the guy starts hopping, protection will be reasonable, of course. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)