Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Torgownik at Russell Targ

Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) self-identifies as the subject of the article Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Despite several warnings and patient explanations, he continues to make contentious and inappropriate edits to the article (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), rather than requesting changes on the Talk page or from one of the supportive editors who are active both there and on his user talk page.

I don't want to see him banned, not least because that would feed https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152195637913218&id=295503008217&comment_id=10152195729103218&offset=0&total_comments=1 his conspiracy theories about Wikipedia], but it's hard to know what do do when he refuses to accept that continuing to make these changes is inappropriate, not least for his own reputation. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I have not added anything controversial to my bio page for several days. I have been peacefully and very extensively answering questions for a wiki editor (Wnt), on the Warning page. I changed my start date at Lockheed from 1986, to the correct date 1985. But that doesn't sick. The editors strongly prefer the incorrect date. I will let it go. I added Helena Blavatsky to my father's publishing. People seem to think that's OK. I do not know what this current fuss is about. I have surrendered to overwhelming force, since you are obviously free to write anything you wish. Torgownik (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell Torgownik (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell

• Targ is not the aggressor here. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russell_Targ#Targ.27s_personal_commentary_being_cited_in_the_lead in which Goblin Face announces that "I am not too sure about Targ's comment on his website about Wikipedia being put in the lead [24]. The reason I say this, is because most of what he has written is completely wrong about Wikipedia but it also contains a deliberate lie." The "comment" is simply that he disagrees with being called a pseudoscientist. Apparently Wikipedia rules not merely insist that he be branded a pseudoscience, not only rule out citation of any source disputing that point of view, but rule out even mention that he himself could possibly object to this self-evident enlightened point of view. And we still don't have that in, right now, because it's been repeatedly reverted. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's my response to this. These are all Targ's comments, you can judge if what he has been saying is ok or not:

• "Bobby Fisher and "laser pioneer" had been in my bio for at least a year before the Wiki trolls got interested me and my bio. It is indisputable that you are all snipping away at my life because you can't stand that there is world-wide interest in remote viewing. Within a decade modern physics will figure out how it works, and then you will all go away, back into your mother's basement." [4]

• "It looks to me as though you are very good at reading the skeptical literature, but not so interested in the scientific papers you are trashing. I had to wait until my ninth book to say we had "A physicist's proof for psychic abilities" because now the data are overwhelming. If you can't see that, it's because you haven't looked at the data. It's more fun to throw rocks and break windows." [5]

• "If you Wikipedia editors have any tiny spark of integrity, you should include the following... I will be looking for some part of this to appear on the bio page. If not, I will just addume that you have no interest at all in presenting the truth." [6]

• The Wikipedia trolls who are trashing my bio site have only 100% negative things to say about the very existence of remote viewing. I think that is pretty crazy. What alternate universe are they living in? [7]

It is my opinion that Targ is abusive and just on Wikipedia to cause trouble, he's been temporarily blocked twice already for edit-warring, deleting references from his article, (sock puppeting on an IP), meat puppetry etc. Off Wikipedia he is writing falsehoods about it [8], [9]. I don't see why Targ is still on Wikipedia. I'm not editing his article for a while, I have taken a break from it. So whatever. This really doesn't interest me. Got other stuff to do. Goblin Face (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

#1: The critics had somehow convinced themselves that his wife being the sister of Bobby Fischer was unacceptable trivia that should be taken out. I managed to get them to accept it by citing a news story in which he helped Fischer, but they still are of the opinion that it is necessary to include that his father published "Chariots of the Gods", but not that he published "The Godfather", even though the latter was Putnam's big blockbuster.

#3: The article cited a single report by American Institutes of Research, which encompassed a blue ribbon panel, one pro and one anti remote viewing, overseen by three other reviewers. The line on the article was that the anti in the report was a reliable source to cite, but the pro- in the same report was a fringe source that couldn't be quoted. I tried to deal with this by citing major conclusions from the combined group that pretty much said what they both have said. However, even so... it's a 1995 report about an organization Targ left in 1982 that is felt to be a judgment on Targ's work and can't be delegated to Remote viewing.

Now to be sure, Targ has been moderately irate at points with how Wikipedia has dealt with him, but by no means excessively so given the situation. Wikipedia has a very strong BLP policy for celebrities who want their histories in porn movies to go away and so forth. I don't agree when people do that, but I believe in just being plain fair and letting people hear what Targ thinks, hear what the people doing paranormal research think, setting down all the opinions side by side and letting the best man win. But when the skeptics get organized and aggressive, biography articles turn into a gauntlet of insults with no room for neutral description. Wnt (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He has also consistently assumed bad faith, in relentless violation of Hanlon's Razor if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The way to let people hear what Targ thinks, as for the subject of any bio, is not by letting him edit his own article. Perhaps a case can be made for the insertion of the WSJ quote, but he is not the one to insert it. Personally, I think it belongs in the article, but as a claim, not as the statement of fact inserted at this edit [10]. I see this as an example of when a subject of an article has a reasonable complaint that material should be added, but still should not be adding it themselves because of the POV of the addition. BTW, I am rather doubtful of using the fact that his father published books on the occult, unless his father was particularly known for doing so, or that his father's bookstore had these works, again, unless it was exclusively or predominantly devoted to it. Every general bookstore has such works. and most general publishers have published them from time to time. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely right. So how do we stop him doing this, ideally without blocking him. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask article subjects not to edit an article to preserve a neutral article, though they can still intervene to deal with vandalism. However, if an article reads like a hatchet job and neutrality isn't being preserved, then we can't blame the subject for diving in. So the shortest route to that destination is to deal with the problems he and others have pointed out. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COIADVICE is intended to be advice for an editor with a COI to follow to avoid running into conflicts. However, when the editor is the article subject sometimes what they think would "unambiguously violate" our BLP policy may just be something that the article subject doesn't agree with. I'd suggest that 1, 3, and 4 would be acceptable behavior in this situation. -- Atama頭 19:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt:, if the article were a peerless example of polished Wikipedia perfection, Torgownik would still consider it grossly insulting. The problem is that he passionately believes in a body of work that is not just rejected by the scientific community, but ridiculed and considered a case-study in exactly how not to do science properly. I feel very sorry for him, but this genuinely is not our problem to fix, and the changes he makes are well outside of what could be supported by even the most charitable interpretation of the rules. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• In Guy's 3 diffs I see #1) a slightly heated rant about the article inserted into the article itself, which is wrong there but would have been fine on the talkpage. Per AGF and BITE, I think this was just an editing mistake and Russell Targ should just be informed that discussion about the article should go onto the talkpage instead of the article page. #2 is the insertion of the WSJ citation about silver prediction. Yes that's a COI edit and could be phrased more neutrally, actually on second look, it really wasn't too bad as written and if you insist on reverting Targ's adding it on COI grounds, then ok--but I'd support another editor rewriting and reinserting it since it's relevant and sourcing is fine (the WSJ article itself is online and it takes a factual and suitably skeptical though diplomatic tone towards the psychic experiment). #3 fixes the Lockheed date (uncontentious so I'd tend to take Targ's word for it) and makes a few other minor additions that strictly speaking have COI/promotion issues, but those issues are fairly minor on the scale of such things. I do think the mention of Bobby Fischer should be left in the article as a gloss on the existing hyperlink to Mrs. Targ's biography page. The talk page is kind of noisy but if people can dial back their bureaucratic impulses a bit and Mr. Targ is willing to limit his participation to the talk page rather than the article, I don't think intervention is needed at the moment. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

AGF would work if he had been here a day or a week. He's been here longer than that, and his advocacy has been extremely forceful. Those are not the only problematic edits to the article made by him. As I say, he keeps doing this even after being told multiple times that he should not. The problem is not the specific edits themselves, it's the fact that he refuses to accept that he should not be making these POV edits to his own article for numerous good reasons. Part of the problem is that a few people sympathetic to his POV are egging him on and contributing to an impression that adding POV content to your own biography is fine by some people and that objections are about the subject matter rather than about policy and the consensus that biography subjects should not add contentious content. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that according to the article Targ is legally blind. I've seen a couple of other misplaced edits, and I'm sure they are not merely accidental but excusable in the sense that they don't mean he's ignorant of where to put the edit. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I know this. It might explain one r two of the edits, but most are clearly content edits. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is giving a lot of contradictory signals in this situation. The actual WP:COI lists "escaping" the conflict by not editing the article as one of three options. It calls for blocking editors only in the case of single-purpose self-promotional accounts, not BLP subjects dealing with genuine bias. Yet Targ just recently got another "last warning" message on his talk. I think it should be clear that our enforcement should be more lenient than the written policy standard, not the other way around. It looks like WP:COI has been used as a veritable trashcan for random shoulds and oughts that don't actually tell a user what he is and isn't allowed to do. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I no longer pretend to understand whatever agenda the skeptics are pushing. For example, I tried to add more information about just what the remote viewers were doing in Stargate Project, and they insist on taking it all out because it's a "fringe source" - even though it is simply someone who was there saying what they did, and I wasn't trying to use it to make contentious claims. Yet when I threw them a bone to see what would happen, an original reference pointing out the huge role of Scientology in the 1972 program [11] they showed no interest at all. They seem more interested in simply suppressing all information about the topic than in documenting even the reasons to disbelieve the data. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The agenda is very simple. Our policies forbid us form representing remote viewing as if it were a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, because it isn't. Targ hates the consensus view that it's pseudoscientific nonsense, we cannot fix that because it is simply not our problem to fix. The claims he makes are inherently contentious because he asserts that calling remote viewing pseudoscience, as the sources do, is unacceptable. In support of this he cites old papers which have been rebutted and/or refuted, as if the old papers themselves refute their refutations. A circular style of argument that is ubiquitous among promoters of nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to pursue the WP:TRUTH, be it pseudoscience or extreme scepticism. BLP trumps everything. Is it time to hand out a few blocks and/or topic bans to the worst offenders here? And I don't mean Targ. --John (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I really only skimmed through this discussion and did not get into details, neither did I see all of his editing history. But there are so many more serious offenders on Wikipedia than this 80 year old man who is trying to edit his biography article. I agree with some of the previous users that he should be one of the later ones on the list to block. Caseeart (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe they should be blocked too, but we don't not block somebody because other people need blocks, or because of how old they are (or aren't). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said - I don't know exactly what he did wrong. It seems that he is trying to promote himself.

You don't want a disabled 80 year old in the emergency room over an editing dispute. Compare it to civil court that even after conviction - consideration is taken during sentencing.Caseeart (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe you could put a notification in bold words on the top of the article: "Many parts of this article have been edited by Targ himself and may therefore not meet WP:NEUTRAL standards." Caseeart (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we should circumvent policy to avoid hurting the feelings of a POV/promotion pusher. You said I don't know exactly what he did wrong. It seems that he is trying to promote himself. That is exactly what he did wrong. G S Palmer (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• At least he is honest about it. He is not sockpupeting and not hurting others. That is a minimal policy violation. Caseeart (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• If he is purposely introducing promotional material, then he is hurting Wikipedia's image and violating point four of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. G S Palmer (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• In certain circumstances Wikipedia does allow WP:ABOUTSELF. Him editing his own article is very similar. I will advise him on his talk page. Caseeart (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

He has been notified on his talk page, numerous times. He carries on anyway. That's the problem. That and the fact that he rejects the mainstream analysis of his body of work. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not disputing that he is not following Wikipedia rules, and I also confirmed that he was in fact warned on his talk page.

However I agree with Wnt to avoid a block for additional reasons.

• I consider his violations to be minimal (as I pointed out earlier).
• Once established that User:Torgownik is in fact Mr. Targ (-I believe it is-), then what he writes on his talk page or his edits should be treated like WP:ABOUTSELF, which is allowed to be used as a source if it meets certain guidelines. We need to accommodate his disabilities and cannot expect him to create a self published blog/website. Instead we should treat his talk page (and his edits in the article) as his published blog.
• My main argument is not about policy - it is about ethics. We need to consider his pervious life long work, along with his current age (80) and disabilities. Just like any business is required to take measures to accommodate disabled (such as wheelchair accessibility etc. - even at high cost), we too need to understand that a person at this age would have difficulties adapting to all Wikipedia policies. Being legally blind makes it difficult for him to read and write and go through all the policies. We need to consider the possible effects of blocking him, just like a civil court would consider sentencing a disabled person. Caseeart (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• So you recommend that we circumvent policy to cater to a disruptive editor and allow them to turn their page into a blog. Is that right? G S Palmer (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ has only edited his article in minor and positive ways since this was brought up. There's no need to take any action against him. Meanwhile his opponents called him a "crank" writing "crank papers" etc. no less than seven times (never mind that the NSA, DIA, CIA, SRI, and SAIC were all behind this) ... and the really funny part is their contorted Wikilawyer song and dance about how it would be undue weight to list his "non-crank" papers in his publications list because the others are 'more cited', even while they have opposed pro-parapsychology sources of any other kind that might support Targ as 'undue weight'! Now it is a rare thing anywhere on Wikipedia for "UNDUE" to mean anything other than "what I disagree with", but it is also rare to see the same people hitting the ping-pong ball from both sides of the net. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Many editors have been exceedingly patient in explaining to Targ the various policies over and over and over again. At this point if he is unable or unwilling to understand and adhere to WP policies, then he is either not competent to edit here or has failed to get the point of the policies.
• I empathize with him because it can't be easy to read that the majority of his life's work is considered pseudoscience. My empathy does not excuse his behaviour, however, and does not extend to ensuring that he is not harmed by being blocked. It is not WP's place to bend the policies to make sure he doesn't end up in the ER. He is responsible for his own actions and for taking care of himself, and his age and vision are therefore not relevant to the discussion of whether to block him.
• Since he has shown that he is unable to non-disruptively edit the Russell Targ page, I think an escalating block on that article page while still allowing him access to Talk pages and his own User page (if this setup is even possible) might help. Ca2james (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is everyone's ethical requirement to accommodate a disabled elderly person. Especially in a case that he is trying to edit his own article which IS allowed under certain circumstances per WP:ABOUTSELF.
• If you want to make Wikipedia a better place - it is not through bullying elderly disabled people and whitewashing their work in front of them. It is not through blocking an elderly disabled from editing his page just because he has difficulties adapting to wiki policies.
• If you are concerned about the reliability of some of the material he want's to add - just put his name as the source and citation - that he himself put the info in the article (similar to WP:ABOUTSELF). Let the reader decide.
• This article is from the best I've come across. There are too many poorly written Non Neutral BLP articles that whitewash the subject. There are so many promotion articles. There are so many users who go from one BLP article to another posting defamatory information often transforming the article to an attack style. Too little is being done and there are not enough policies protecting. Correcting those articles and blocking those users is what we need to focus on.
• I think we are going back and forth repeating the same arguments. I hope the administrator who will make the decision will understand my concern. Caseeart (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "If you are concerned about the reliability of some of the material he want's to add - just put his name as the source and citation - that he himself put the info in the article (similar to WP:ABOUTSELF). Let the reader decide.": Absolutely not, no. If a proponent of a controversial subject like Remote Viewing wants to argue his case for it, he needs to do so out there in the scientific literature - *not* on Wikipedia. Wikipedia will then reflect the actual balance of reliable sources from the relevant literature - and that's a fundamental cornerstone of the whole project. I appreciate the idea of being respectful to an old man, but if his work is discredited by the scientific community, then that's what we have to say and there really is no respectable alternative. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have left Torgownik a (long) talk message by way of an olive branch, which I hope might help. I think we can resolve this, in a sympathetic and easy way, via a voluntary agreement for him not to edit his own biography, if he's amenable to it. I've tried to explain a few things that others, I believe, haven't really done. Take a look at what I wrote and see if you think it might help. --Tristessa (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Nice to see an administrator user (and a user) spending time discussing and negotiating with Mr. Targ. Previously, it did not even appear to me that it would work.

Based on the talk conversation you had - it seems that you are working *with* Targ and explaining the correct method of placing the sourced material in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Caseeart (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just came across This article[12] about Russel Targ editing his wikipedia page. I added it to his bio page. The article points out that Targ is not versed in the ways of Wikipedia and that some of his complaints about his bio page are valid (definitely a reason he should do some editing - but it seems that the issue was already resolved anyways by Tristessa). Caseeart (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The behavior continues. diff, diff, diff and diff. I doubt this editor will be able to make constructive edits to the article directly. Limitation to talk page is probably in order. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIR issue

I have been dealing with ScottKazama (talk · contribs) for apparently two years already. He is not a native English speaker yet he insists on contributing large swaths of poorly written prose to articles. I have told him multiple times that if he cannot write with better grammar he should not be editing on this project. He is also not a native Japanese speaker and he insists on contributing content that he has translated from Japanese-language reliable sources that are highly erroneous. I am not the only person who has had issues with ScottKazama's edits (see User talk:ScottKazama#Please use proper English.). I am not here as a spell checker for someone who is not a native speaker. He barely responds to any messages on his user talk page, and most certainly has not responded to the ones I have been leaving him regarding his lack of fluency. He means well. He doesn't do well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Criminy. Sounds like someone in need of a Rider Kick... or a topic ban perhaps. At least from pages about Japanese culture, or from posting content supported by non-English sources? At least if he sticks to English sources, you don't need a bilingual editor to go in and verify that something he did was wrong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

His grasp of English in general is poor, even when he is using (unofficially) translated material. The southeast Asian community does not teach the English language very well to its students.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't personally have a problem with picking up the slack for editors who make mistakes like that (not that I'm personally volunteering to follow this specific guy around with a broom). The big problem I see is that where it's been shown the editor can't use foreign language materials properly: picking out those errors can take a very long time, even for a language with so many bilingual English speakers as Japanese. But... yeah three of his last four edits contain mistakes that are clearly not acceptable English. I see two options: topic ban from using non-English sources as I suggested above (probably indefinite), or a mainspace ban (of, say, 6 months). I don't think blocking is a fair way to resolve this given this looks like someone editing in good faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

While I certainly don't dispute that there are issues with this particular editor, could we please stay away from broad-brush generalizations about "the southeast Asian community"? Such statements are neither absolutely correct nor are they relevant in any way to this discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have experience that English speakers of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore have difficulty writing English grammar on Wikipedia and in my professional life. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And I have experience with English speakers from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore who write fluently and correctly. (I further have experience with native English speakers from the U.S. and the UK who make an absolute hash of the language.) My point is that there's no need to draw the nationality or ethnicity of ScottKazma into this discussion; it is unhelpful and counterproductive to do so.

It encourages fallacious and spurious thinking along the lines of "Scott is from southeast Asia; people from southeast Asia are bad at speaking or writing English; therefore Scott's editing is problematic", instead of the useful and specific reasoning of "There are problems with Scott's (English) writing; therefore Scott's editing is problematic". See the difference? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Squirrel! While it doesn't matter if the editor in question is American, Malaysian, or Martian, that matter also doesn't matter the way the matter at hand matters. I'm for a mainspace ban, with the strong recommendation that he stick to English sources unless he knows that another editor can understand and verify any non-English sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, back to the issue at hand. Here's the ban language I'd suggest:

ScottKazma is banned from editing in articlespace for six months (or one year). This ban may be extended to indefinite if, upon its expiration, there is no evidence of improved care in English grammar (with evidence preferentially drawn from requested edits ScottKazma made, rather than solely from discussions), or if there is evidence of ongoing misuse of non-English sources in requested edits.

I'm personally not in favor of indefinite bans as a beginning measure, though I would support just going to indef if that's what other discussants preferred. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Only thing I can force myself to think of to add to that would be something about letting him revert clear-cut vandalism in article space. I'd think that WP:IAR would apply to someone reverting a vandal replacing an article with an ASCII drawing of Goatse.cx, but it doesn't hurt to have that spelled out just in case. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this might be better:

Notwithstanding the provisions of WP:BANEX, ScottKazma is banned from editing in articlespace for six months (or one year). This ban may be extended to indefinite if, upon its expiration, there is no evidence of improved care in English grammar (with evidence preferentially drawn from requested edits ScottKazma made, rather than solely from discussions), or if there is evidence of ongoing misuse of non-English sources in requested edits. For the purposes of this ban alone, editors implementing changes openly requested by ScottKazma will not be deemed to be engaged in proxy editing. This ban does not alleviate editors that submit changes on ScottKazma's behalf of any other responsibility for making those edits.

The important points: WP:BANEX by default allows ScottKazma to edit in articlespace for the purpose of reverting obvious vandalism and BLP violations; the language of the new provision ensures it's clear that this ban does not interfere with that. Editors will be able to incorporate changes on ScottKazma's behalf, but will not be alleviated of any responsibility they would otherwise have (in other words, they're just as liable for disruption as they would be if they made the edit themselves). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think wikt:notwithstanding is the right word to use here. The way that is worded, it's saying that WP:BANEX doesn't apply to ScottKazama's ban. A better wording would be: "ScottKazama is banned from editing in article space for six months (one year), subject to provisions of except as provided in WP:BANEX". ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 12:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're actually not correct (this is a tremendously common phrasing in treaties, and the citations on Wiktionary of the prepositional usage bear out that it means what I intend it to mean), but I'm not going to argue for a specific wording in something like this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the citations to which you are referring are indeed using the word in accordance with the definition, "in spite of". isaacl (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. The ban discussion seems to have stagnated a bit. It seems obvious to me that ScottKazama, however well meaning they may be (it's hard to tell), is a net drain on resources. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here. After selectively reviewing the user's contributions, as well as their talkpage, I've reached the conclusion that they need to be indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Competence is required. I don't see how anybody could follow this user around and simply "correct" the English, even assuming that somebody was willing to spend the time, since the English (for instance in User:Mendaliv's three diffs above) is so poor as to be incomprehensible; I can't tell what they meant to say. That's apart from the other concerns raised by Ryulong. I also sympathize with Ryulong's advice to the user about sources,[13][14] about using edit summaries,[15][16] about insertion of personal opinion in articles[17][18], etcetera. That's only a small selection of attempts to communicate that I found on the user's page, and a lot of the time the user doesn't seem to understand, and so Ryulong is impelled to post the same criticism again and again. I actually think Ryulong has been very patient, and has tried hard to advise the user, to not very much effect. Nor do I think it's meaningful to give a ban predicated on the user's need to "take more care". It's surely not a question of care, but of competence. Banning from the only topic that interests them, and/or from using the only kinds of sources that they, well, will use, seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Also, considering the language issues, explaining such a block to the user and preparing them for complying with it would be difficult. (You realize Ryulong has been trying to explain much simpler stuff to them for two years.) But if anybody would like to try that path, feel free to unblock and institute a ban instead. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Endorse block, though I would prefer a ban that would retain the user in some capacity. I think, perhaps, the problem with that is, as Bishonen points out, the level of work needed to actually ensure the ban was properly explained, in addition to the fact that two years of disruption have already occurred. This may be viewed as a call for more aggressive use of limited bans at an earlier stage, in addition to having more standard ban provisions pre-drafted and translated as needed (we shouldn't appear to be disproportionately hard on non-native speakers, after all). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking care of these matters Bishonen. It is regrettable that he had to be blocked but the effort needed to correct him when he does not want to be corrected far outweighs any good there is in his speedy writing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's also worth noting that he didn't respond in any way here, but instead continued with the same type of edits after you had alerted him to this discussion. That was the last straw for me. Thank you for reporting the problem, Ryūlóng. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

Requesting block for Motique

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

---

Could someone please give a short block to Motique (talk · contribs). They have been asked to stop making certain types of edit (removing Arabic transcriptions, changing date formats (e.g. here, where they leave the article with two different date formats in use)), but have repeatedly ignored other editors. They have never responded to any attempts to engage them (zero edits to user talkspace or talk pages), and unfortunately I think a block is the only way of getting their attention. Two other editors (@Sean.hoyland: and @LibStar:) raised these issues with me after my last request to Motique to stop. Number 57 13:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please also block Mottic (talk · contribs), which appears to be an alternative account (they switched from one to the other on 10/11 August last year), just in case they return to using that instead. Number 57 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• They also appear to never use edit summaries: this is a user who has logged about 4000 edits since August 2013. It seems they have a major communication problem. I agree with Number 57 that a block is probably the only way to get their attention. G S Palmer (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made at least 4 attempts to request they start using edit summaries with zero response. I fully support a block. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, this editor has been a pain for months, such as promoting Hebrew text over Arabic text without cause or explanation. Zero^talk 14:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Adding category "Antisemitism in Norway", like Motique did here to the bio of a former Minister of Finance whose "crime" was that she had been critical of Israel: isn´t that a WP:BLP-violation? Huldra (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In fairness to Motique, it was reported that she had been at a protest march shouting "Death to the Jews". Number 57 22:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • In fairness to Kristin Halvorsen, please read the discussion here. Jpost withdrew the story later in the day, after it had caused a minor diplomatic row between the two countries. (I am surprised some of those libels/stupidities are still to be found on the net: if anyone believes that a politician would survive (politically) for 2 seconds in Scandinavia after shouting "Death to the Jews" at a protest march, then I have a wonderful bridge to sell you! Special price for you, my friend...) Huldra (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
      • My point was that it was reported in the media and the accusations are still on the newspaper's website (not sure how they withdrew the story if it's still there). But anyway, Motique may not have seen that discussion (it's not even on the Halvorsen talk page), so I think we need to AGF in this case. However, it would be nice if an admin would actually look at this section and do something. Number 57 08:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
        • It was reported here that they were withdrawn; the highly libellous claim seem since to have reappeared. My points still stands though: nobody with "any" knowledge about Scandinavia could believe such claims for half a second. We should not encourage people to edit sensitive issues in areas which they are completely clueless about, IMO. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• I too have repeatedly asked this editor to use edit summaries, and have protested at their promotion of Hebrew names over Arabic names. This editor has made some 4000 edits in the nine months that they have been active, but as far as I can see has not once used an edit summary, nor responded to, or indeed made, any talk page comments. With such a consistent pattern of contentious edits and a total failure/refusal to explain these or take part in any discussion, it is impossible to collaborate in any meaningful way wiith this editor, and a sanction would appear necessary in order to draw to their attention the need to communicate with other editors and to prevent any further disruption. RolandR (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. They had a final warning yesterday and haven't edited since. I've told them that if they don't communicate they will be blocked, possibly by me. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Number 57 13:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

as of a few hours ago, Motique is still editing without edit summaries nor coming here to respond to concerns raised. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Since User:Motique has continued editing past a final warning with no response here, and still no discussion they are now blocked 24 hours per the above complaint. In my opinion this is likely to become an indef if they still show no sign of cooperation. 4000 edits with no discussion is a lot. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Huldra (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

back editing after block

I notice Motique is back editing after block and still no edit summaries. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

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

Baseball Bugs disruptive behaviour on the Reference Desks

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

---

User:Baseball Bugs has been a disruptive and unhelpful user of the Reference Desks for a long time now. His conduct today on WP:RD/H is symptomatic of the general pattern, rather than isolated. A user asked a reasonable question about terminology relating to disability, and got a perverse answer from User:StuRat which included an arguably derogatory term. User:Viennese Waltz queried this, and Baseball Bugs responded with unhelpful sarcasm: [19] ; he then tried to draw a very fine distinction of language to head off VW's criticism of StuRat: [20]. Then, BB directly accused VW of harassment: [21] [22] [23] - including providing this accusation as a false and unhelpful response to the previous OP's complaint about the hostile response to the earlier question: [24].

He's also tried suppressing other users' RD contributions: [25]; suggested that an IP user was too ignorant to know a human being isn't a plant: [26]; uses Google Translate to answer RD/L questions [27]; and claimed Roman Catholicism is polytheistic: [28]. This is not the usage pattern of someone who is on RD to help people. Above and beyond the obvious and repeated false claim against Viennese Waltz, I'd say this verges on WP:NOTHERE. During the 'Manning naming dispute', BB was censured for ad hominem attacks on other participants ([29]). I maintained then, and I maintain now, that this behaviour is not, and never was, confined to that case, but characterises this user's entire engagement with this site and its other users. I encourage the administrators to apply an appropriate restriction on his usage. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that AlexTiefling's had an account since 2004, has a user page with about a zillion user boxes and half-a-zillion categories ("Wikipedians who like Harvey Birdman"), and proudly displays a barnstar, yet in all his time here, he's managed to make only 5,134 edits, and of those only 882 (19.06%) are to article space, while a hefty 2,783 (60.15%) are to Wikipedia space. One might profitably question what this editor's purpose is in being here - is it to build an encyclopedia? BMK (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

BMK, that's entirely an ad hominem. What does the characteristics of AlexTiefling have to do with his central point? It's a DH-1 argument.--v/r - TP 18:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that arbitrator Newyorkbrad has had an account since 2006, yet only 12% of his edits are to article space, while a hefty 45% are to Wikipedia space. One might profitably question what this Newyorkbrad's purpose is in being here - is it to build an encyclopedia? Is there something in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines that says N% of edits must be to mainspace to remain here? BMK, I agree with TParis here. Your comment is out of line. Unless you are prepared to provide evidence that Alex is not here to build an encyclopedia, drop the accusations and back slowly away. There are many, many tasks to do for the encyclopedia. Mainspace is but one subset of the overall effort. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Hammersoft, please don't be disingenuous, you're much better than that. In general, admins, bureaucrats, Arbitrators and other fucntionaries spend a much larger percentage of their time outside of article space for obvious reasons that I know I don't have to explain to you. As for how AlexTiefling's stats are relevant, they reveal someone whose focus, as an ordinary rank-and-file editor, does not seem to be where it should be, on improving the encyclopedia. Thus one can legitimately speculate what his motivations are in bringing this matter to AN/I, especially when I'm not seeing anything for an admin to do here. Was it simply to stir up dramah? I dunno, but I do know that bringing AT's history to the attention of other editors here may well be beneficial in the long run, when the next complaint is filed, and the next.

If AT doesn't want to be characterized as a non-productive editor, there's a simple solution - he should edit articles or otherwise do something that improves the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What does any of it have to do with the validity of the complaint? You're trying to undermine the credentials of the complainant, without addressing the argument itself.--v/r - TP 21:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

BMK, I thought better of you than this. The issue here is not the location of someone's contributions - I make no secret of being quite as attached to RD as BB is - but their effect. It's none of your business who I am, or why I choose to spend my time on the site as I do. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I never asked you who you are, and I don't care, so that's another red herring you've thrown into the mix, along with the "laughable" SPI on Bugs, which you just had to mention. As for what this has to do with the complaint, the character and behavior of the OP of an AN/I filing is always a legitimate issue. TParis, you know that full well. BMK (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is AlexTiefling somehow guilty of some grave crime because he spends less than N% of his edits in mainspace? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Gee, has a "crime" been alleged? Has someone accused AT of violating policy? Must have happened when I was otherwise engaged.

  As far as I can see, all that's happened is that the relationship of the complainant to the project, as evidenced by his editing statistics (an admittedly crude instrument), has been explored in case it might tell us something about the OP's motivation in bringing a non-substantive complaint to AN/I. That's it, end of story.

  Are you planning to keep ratcheting up the rhetoric with each comment you post? Will I next stand accused of tar-and-feathering the guy, and then of keel-hauling him, and finally of lynching him? You clearly don't agree that my statement about his editing stats has relevance, fine, I disagree, or I wouldn't have posted the comment, but there's little need to keep upping the ante as you are doing. BMK (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of upping the ante, what has the content of my user page got to do with anything? Why did you bring it up? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• BMK, my only intent was to point out the absurdity of judging someone based on their % of mainspace contributions. It would be pleasant if you retracted your accusation, but not expected. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you believe that StuRat's conduct is remotely appropriate in this circumstance. [30] is among the most offensive things I've seen on Wikipedia this week, and that's saying a great deal. Notified user appropriately. Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not like the outdated term "retarded", but if you look closely, his was the only comment that actually tried to answer the user's question. And since no one would answer my question as to what the correct term is, I looked it up on the recent Supreme Court decision. The answer is "intellectually disabled". VW has long had the habit of coming to a given entry not to try to help answer the question, but merely to harass another user. He is the instigator of this latest fiasco, and he is the one that needs to be disciplined. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't care. People are not to be called retarded. Period, full stop. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously denying the complete and utter unacceptability of calling people retarded? Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. Are you seriously denying the complete and utter unacceptability of calling people retarded? Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. BMK (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I may have misread the comment, but other than the unfortunate/inappropriate word choice, StuRat seems to have been trying to be helpful. G S Palmer (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is certainly possible that even in the US and other individual countries, not every individual will necessarily know which terms do and do not give offense to members of groups to whom such terms are applied. The categorical statements by Hipocrite above seem to be almost attempts to unilaterally define policy and guidelines here, and this is not the appropriate place for such attempts. I can, and will now, say that it would probably be in the best interests of any reference desk volunteer to have access to one or more online databanks, such as those available at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, to help them in their efforts at the reference desk. I'd encourage that, actually. But I can't see any reason to denigrate StuRat for maybe using a word to which other people object for basically reasons of political correctness. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even slightly endorsing StuRat's conduct. But I can't tackle everything at once. And BB's response above - about the supreme court decision - does not provide an answer to the OP's question, but to a question about intellectual disabilities in particular which only arose as a result of StuRat's unhelpful first reply. The original question remains unanswered; the fact that BB claims otherwise is further evidence of the derailing and distracting conduct which characterises this entire farrago. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

StuRat said the ones he knows call each other "brother". How is that not an answer (in fact, the only answer so far) to the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread in order to evaluate StuRat's answer - which is one second-hand anecdote from a person he refers to by a derogatory term, and which the OP didn't find adequate - I started it to get a review of your conduct on the RDs. Please stop derailing it. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you started it in order to continue the harassment VW started against both StuRat and me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to not recognizing harassment when he sees it, the complainant here misread what was going on. The IP in question had not only leveled an attack at another user but had also vandalized the previous paragraph. VW reverted it without paying attention to what was going on. Separately, JackOfOz fixed the vandalism part, and the IP's attack stands. Oddly enough, I never see VW criticizing IP's for their behavior. I can only conclude that his attacks on guys like StuRat and me are personal and vindictive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can be reasonably sure you're the same person each time. I just discovered you've recently been exonerated in a sockpuppet investigation; we can therefore be pretty certain that every time your name appears, and only then, it's you 'speaking'. The same isn't true of most IPs. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you took that SPI seriously, you're not qualified to be commenting on anything here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hell, no. It was laughable and unjustified, and I take it no more seriously than you did. It's entirely separate from this discussion; would it help if I struck my rhetorical reference to it? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was "laughable and unjustified", why did you see fit to mention it here, except in an attempt to throw as much mud as possible on Bugs, hoping that some of it would stick? What the hell is your purpose here? In this thread and on Wikipedia? BMK (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I was simply making a rhetorical flourish to emphasise that dealing with BB's conduct is a different kettle of fish to tackling disruptive IPs. Anything else you're seeing there is in your own mind. My purpose here in this thread is to try and get the uncivil and anti-social behaviour of a fellow user addressed. My purpose here on Wikipedia is to help build an encyclopedia and provide helpful references; beyond that, it's not your concern. Are you through with the ad hominem yet? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so the fact that you brought the "laughable and unjustified" SPI out of nowhere, when no one else had mentioned it before: when it had nothing to do with the substance of your complaint, or, indeed, with the character or behavior of Baseball Bugs, all of that is "in my own mind"? My, I do have a very fertile imagination, don't I. I can imagine words and statements right onto the page, signed by you, even. Amazing! What a guy I am.

"Rhetorical flourish" my great Aunt Sadie. BMK (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, along with striking everything from your second paragraph, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As you can't answer a straight question, I think I'll leave it in. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Yes" did you not consider a straight answer? Actually, though, every complaint you've lodged in this section is bogus, so you may as well box it up now and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The part where you unilaterally extended my offer from the details of my rhetoric to the substance of my complaint, obviously. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your complaint has no substance. It's bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the addition of vy to the word might as vandalism? [31] If so this is a little extreme. It's the sort of thing which could easily happen unwittingly if the person had selected the wrong place and hit a key or two which they didn't notice because they weren't looking where they selected. It should have been removed when spotting it, but it should have no bearing on whether the comment is removed. (That removal will need to stand entirely bu itself.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: [32] - BB now decides that passing notes about the character of the participants in this ANI is a good idea. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're nannies. Sorry if the truth hurts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my use of the factually correct term "mentally retarded", see my explanation here: [33]. Part of the problem here is the euphemism treadmill. When I learned to talk, "mentally retarded" and "black" were the politically correct terms, but the next generation has new terms and has decided that any terms used by the old generation are offensive. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have some real-life expertise in this. Professionals stopped using the word long (like 20 years) before it became a slur specifically because it was factually inaccurate. "Retardation" means ""lateness" or "slowing", with the implication that the individual simply needs more time to reach an average level. (This is also why "growth retardation" is being replaced by "growth deficit".) "Retardation" also implies an external cause, as opposed to a genetic/chromosomal cause.

This reminds me of the Englishman who loudly defended "dyslexia" as a better term than "learning disability" despite the fact that there are fifty different learning disabilities and dyslexia isn't even the most common one. --NellieBly (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, "mental retardation" is still used by the New York Times and others. Slowness in learning is at least part of the problem, and many can learn the basic skills needed for life, given enough time and repetition. And, to me, calling them "mentally deficient" sounds even worse. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the term "euphemism treadmill." I was very aware of the process, but hadn't heard that phrase to describe it before. BMK (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also note that it's an ongoing process, so whatever term we use now, such as "special", as in the Special Olympics, may soon sound as outdated and borderline offensive as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People does now. StuRat (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. My wife's office is very concerned about these matters, and I keep trying to point out that they're running the Red Queen's race. Ultimately the problem is that people don't like being characterized, but since characterization is inevitable, given human psychology, they try to control the process by controlling the words used. However the words used are just a stand-in for the characterization they object to, so over time the words start to appear demeaning again, and we're back where we started. And scientific endeavors don't help much, because their attempts at "objective" characterizations -- words such as "moron" or "idiot" -- leak out into the language at large and become pejoratives. BMK (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am getting a bit older, and I can agree that at least part of the problem regarding StuRat is that we change politically correct phrasing on a fairly regular basis. That is not my reason for commenting here, but rather in response to the rather absurd comment BB made about praying to saints, linked to above. Theologically, asking a saint for his prayers to God is no different than asking your next-door-neighbor for prayers, although there is a good chance that a saint might be more in tune with the Christian god than one's neighbor. Both are considered able to perceive the outside world, such as in Lazarus and the rich man. That particularly comment, which, honestly, is simply an assertion of so far as I can tell made after no research, here or elsewhere, and clearly stated in biased way, is very problematic, and honestly does not at all help provide the help sought at the reference desk. Granted, some degree of religious bias is expectable from people with religious opinions, but people legitimately trying to help at the help desk should be able to overcome such biases. I don't know that there is necessarily cause to request that BB have his degree of input in general at the refernce desk limited, but there is I believe sufficient grounds to ask him to read WP:COMPETENCE and make a bit clearer effort to conduct himself in accord with it.John Carter (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may disagree with BB that praying to saints is a form of polytheism, or barely different from it, but has been a commonly held view with protestant denominations for a long time. You have a right not to be personally insulted, but you do not have a right to expect that opinions about religions should be suppressed because you believe they are mistaken. Paul B (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

While you have a point regarding the fact that John Calvin decried praying to saints, and all sorts of other veneration to saints as well, it seems to me that you, in a sense, are at least coming close to saying that those groups which like Catholicism and Orthodoxy do pray to saints should not be considered reliable sources regarding their own activities, but that only independent sources, which in this case are those of people who already disagree with them, are the only ones to be considered. I don't have access to the various Wikipedia Library databanks, but the reference books I know of on the broad subject of religion do not consider praying to saints any more "polytheistic" than praying to Michael the archangel or others. There is also the comparatively recently changed definition of the words "pray" and "worship". At the very least, one would expect someone at the reference desk to at least look over a few reference sources before commenting. Having myself been doing little but going through independent reference sources here lately, I have to say that so far as I can tell none that are not specifically denominational in nature would support a statement such as he made, and, if that is true, then there is a real question whether he is really competent to respond to reference questions, which more or less by their nature seek what might be called the opinions of reference sources. And I regret your implication that saying what Catholics and Orthodox say about themselves, rather than what some Protestant sources say about them, would be "suppressing" that opinion, although I think it clear the comment itself more or less seems to be "suppressing" the rationale used to explain/defend prayer to saints as it is done by those bodies which do it. That still, to my eyes, raises questions of competence as per WP:COMPETENCE regarding that matter. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your response is utterly bizarre. "you, in a sense, are at least coming close to saying that those groups which like Catholicism and Orthodoxy do pray to saints should not be considered reliable sources regarding their own activities, but that only independent sources, which in this case are those of people who already disagree with them, are the only ones to be considered." How did I say any such thing, or anything remotely like like it? No-one has suggested that Catholics should not be allowed to express their views. This debate was initiated by someone what wants BB's expression of common Protestant views about Catholicism to be suppressed, an aspiration that you seemed in part at least to support. There is nothing in my comments that could even vaguely be interpreted to support the claim that Catholic views on Catholicism should not be articulated, but only those who oppose it. This discussion has wandered rather far from the initial issue raised, but it illustrates why we should have a bias in favour of free debate rather than a rush to suppress dissent or "incorrect" language. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul, you seemed to be supporting the comment linked to by BB in the very first post to this thread, which I reproduce here. In that comment, and the thread it links to, I see nothing which might be called sympathetic to the veneration of saints or indicating the reasons for same, and, yes, that was a discussion at the reference desk. It seems you may perhaps not have seen the comment earlier, and I urge you to read it now. In any event, that discussion certainly did nothing to support "free debate", which really has no place in a discussion at the refernce desk anyway. There is a difference between free discussion of ideas, repeating biased, sometimes outdated, criticism of others base4 at times on outdated positions of those others, and free debate. The reference desk is not a location for the latter. And, yes, misusing the reference desk in that way is seriously probelmatic, and, if I may say so, as the compiler of the pages in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, probably in at least a way contrary to the purposes of the reference and wikipedia itself. If BB, as he said, found the matter "murky," then he should have done what someone at a reference desk would do, and consult reference sources. The fact that he apparently did not, but chose to voice a rather clearly prejudicial opinion anyway, is I believe something that can legitimately seen as problematic. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of censoring or suppressing dissenting opinions. BB's claim was presented as factual, but is not one which is taken seriously outside the propaganda of certain small groups. No serious scholar in the field thinks it's true. Few if any of the world's one billion Catholics think it true. It's hard to be utterly definitive about religious claims, but I think it's not going too far to describe the claim that Catholicism is polytheistic as a lie. We're not supposed to be lying to RD enquirers. Simple. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

BB also refers several times in that thread to "more modern" Protestant churches that do not pray to saints. It is not a response to the original question which was how is it decided that such and such a saint is going to be the patron saint of footballers or whatever. It is just gratuitous insertion of a personal POV, irrelevant Catholic-bashing.Smeat75 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Retarded" may be politically incorrect, but the context it was used ("A retarded man I know...") is simply descriptive, not pejorative as "you are a..." directed at another editor would be. There's a fine line between maintaining decorum and becoming a stifling, college campus-esque free speech zone. I think attempting to declare a project-wide ban on the r-word in any form whatsoever is a bit over the line. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Darn 58 days late. Is this supposed to be an adult discussion by any chance? BB made a comment which may be all too apt an editor (I fail to see it as being sarcastic), but berating him for it is sad. "Mentally retarded" was used as a heading in a NYT editorial on 3 August 2012, so I doubt it is that ancient a term at this point. [34] and in an article on 14 May 2014. If the NYT uses a term, I doubt it is intrinsically offensive. But the NYT may simply be "behind the Times" so I looked up other sources: [35] Is Voice of Russia politically correct? A few hundred others? What we are left with is a tempest in a teaspoon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "retarded" means "delayed". It's similar to calling someone "slow". In fact, it is a euphemism, since it avoids saying directly "stupid". Of course, like other euphemisms, it came to be used as an insult ("Cretin" comes from "Christian", referring to the view that mentally deficient people have souls, equal in the eyes of God to others). But we have to be aware of what words actually mean and how they are used before we make knee-jerk announcements about how outrageous a comment is. Euphemisms can also be insulting, because their purpose is to evade and conceal. Paul B (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• What I find more problematic than the seemingly innocent usage of a potentially offensive word (I think we can all agree that StuRat had no malicious intent) is the inability of the participants to "drop it" and move on. That reference desk thread should have ended after VW commented that usage of the word is considered offensive, but instead it descended into childish bickering and wanting to get the last word in. The reference desk is not suppose to cater to your own ego, if your comment is not going to be helpful, then don't type it. I don't think it'll be amiss for me to say that people need to grow the fuck up sometimes. —Dark 21:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be. I do note that there does not seem to be yet any sort of discussion regarding how to deal with the complaint. If, as at least a few people agree, StuRat made an understandable mistake, and as he was never really the focus of this thread anyway, that still leaves the question of how to deal with BB. Any opinions from any of you out there what sort of action, if any, is called for in this situation? John Carter (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines about what sort of replies are appropriate at the reference desk? All I see is a statement that volunteers will not give medical or legal advice. Talk pages for articles, of course, are usually clearly marked "not a forum" but I see no indication that the ref desk threads should not be used for general chit chat on the subject or clearly POV remarks such as "more modern" Protestant churches do not practice "polytheistic" customs such as praying to saints.Smeat75 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Many Episcopal/Anglican and Lutheran churches bear names of Saints. Very few of the later-established Protestant denominations use such names on churches (a couple of historical anomalies, but generally true). The distinction between praying "to" a Saint and praying that the Saint "intercede" on one's behalf is an interesting subject. Further complications are "non-historical Saints" such as St. Christopher who have been "demoted" by the Church. Not a simple topic at all. Collect (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's irrelevant. Saints are not deities in the ordinary sense; BB's claim was false on the face of it. I'm not here on this board to debate theology, politicised language, or whatever. The subject here is BB's conduct. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Normal standards of civil conduct apply, and it's my contention that BB has fallen far short of them. There's also a general expectation that one should not provide false answers as though they were true; BB's claim that Catholicism is polytheistic falls well into this category. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If Bugs agreed not to edit the refdesk, and instead worked on the encyclopedia, for six months, would that make you happy, Mr Tiefling? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That implies that the problem is with the RD, in which case I am in almost as much trouble as BB. I don't want to see him banished from RD; when he gives straight answers, they're often good. I want him to refrain from his incivility. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I entered here with an open mind. I rather think the behaviour of Mr. Tiefling has now provided me with a solid opinion about those who regard this as a kindergarten exercise. I suggest a rapid close with admonitions to the OP. Collect (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) WP:RD/G I think actually addresses both of those points. And, FWIW, I think the beginning of the second paragraph, saying snd I quote "We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork" is I believe specifically relevant, as is the secohd point of WP:RD/G#What the reference desk is not. There is also a bit of OR in terms of "more modern" Protestant churches (which are the most "modern"? Ones hundreds of years old which may have not had substantial review of the phrasing of their doctrines in the intervening time, unlike, say Vatican II?) And, FWIW, my objections are not specifically based on the fact of opposition to Catholic/Orthodox doctrine, that's just what struck me at the time as being the POV misrepresentation of a matter of opinion based on the opinion of one or more groups in some form of opposition to the primary group rather than the statements of the groups themselves on such matters. Such soapboxing in favor of one group's beliefs over another's is also specifically addressed on the RD/G page. The most important problem displayed, at least in my eyes, is BB's insistence of making a basically off topic and more or less irrelevant to the question comment in the first place. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter I had not seen those guidelines."The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions." BB's insertion of a personal POV on a theological point entirely unrelated to the original question is clearly against those guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes - thanks, John. I should have included a direct reference to WP:RD/G myself; thank you for correcting my oversight. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling:, what do you think of Demiurge1000's proposal above, about a possible self-imposed ban of BB from the reference desk, in favor of articles, for the next six months? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not keen on it because it implies the RD is the problem, and I'm firmly of the opinion that BB's behavious generally is the problem - check out the Manning Naming Dispute findings, for example. However, pragmatically, BB not using the RD would at least take the heat out of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to formally propose it below so we cna get this over with. I think this is much ado about nothing, personally, as the Wikipedia reference desk is more akin to yahoo answers than it is to a serious reference desk. Bugs at times does the equivalent of a fart in a church; not terribly appropriate but not heresy either. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit to not knowing whether it's me, or an admin, or whoever, who should propose a specific solution. I came here to get expert advice on dealing with the problem. But I'll start a 'proposed resolution' section, and see how we get on. Thanks for the prod in the right direction. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Demiurge1000 has proposed that Baseball Bugs should take a voluntary 6 month break from the Reference Desk. I am currently neutral on this proposal, but have the following queries:

• Does anyone with experience in such matters have an alternative proposal?
• Is Baseball Bugs willing to go along with the current proposal voluntarily?
• If it's a self-imposed exile, what's to stop him (quite sensibly) deciding that it's dull, and returning to RD ahead of time?
• What can any of us - me included - do to foster a more constructive tone on RD?

AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Issuing the same suspension to VW would help a great deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, as a compromise, institute an interaction ban between VW and the set consisting of StuRat and me and whoever else VW attacks frequently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, no one specifically said so far as I can tell that you were going to be suspended. So far as I could see, what was proposed was that you might do so voluntarily. Are we to take the comment above as indicative that you would be unwilling to do so?

In response to AlexTiefling's last point, like I said somewhere above, it would help a lot if those who volunteered at the reference desk also took advantage of the various databank sources available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. It would probably help if even one person got involved there, and sent the documents he might recover to other volunteers as that individual would doubtless be overwhelmed personally. And maybe making it a bit clearer that it might take a few hours to respond, with the questioner pinged when a response is available, might help as well. That is the sort of response I have myself gotten when calling reference desks in the past, and at least once the reference librarian said she had to spend several days of time not otherwise committed at work trying to find an answer. (I used to ask really obscure reference questions in the past. The librarians at college allegedly even had a less than complimentary nickname for me, I was told.) John Carter (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

All I've ever wanted to do at ref desk is to try to answer questions. I don't always do it well. But invariably, when I stand up to bullies and nannies (such as VW), I get schlepped here for it. I'm willing to go away for a while - but not unconditionally. VW, who caused this problem today, needs to go away for an equal amount of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal That Alex Tiefling, Vienna Waltz and Baseball Bugs all shall refrain from any interactions on noticeboards or at the RefDesk for a period of six months. And that cups of tea be handed to each. Collect (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Count me in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support this proposal, as opposed to any other on this page, as the only one offered which deals with all parts of incident. BMK (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat concerned that Baseball Bugs' pattern of conduct is getting papered over by minor remedies that don't address the underlying problem. It was just a few months ago that we had a thread on this very noticeboard that imposed another mutual interaction ban on Baseball Bugs and a couple of other editors, based on a pattern of disruptive bickering at the Reference Desk: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis. That discussion came within a hairsbreadth of imposing a full-on Ref Desk ban on Baseball Bugs; one would have thought he would take that warning to heart.

Instead, he's back at it. And the attitude of "I'll go if I can take my adversary down with me" isn't exactly promising. I don't think that layering on another interaction ban is going to be a durable fix. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying I should just kiss up to the likes of VW instead of standing up to him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say that previous discussion came about as close to a "full-on Ref Desk ban of Baseball Bugs" as it did to a desysop of The Rambing Man, which is to say, not very close at all. BMK (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) Good point, TenOfAllTrades. BB seemed to indicate above that he would voluntarily ban himself on the condition that others be sanctioned as well. We rarely have given individuals being considered for sanctions such an ability to dictate terms in cases like this. I guess I should have to ask @Baseball Bugs: again if he would be willing to agree to a self-imposed ban for six months, regardless of other circumstances, or whether he would insist that any sanctions which may or may not be imposed on him would have to be imposed by others. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

VW instigated this problem, in his usual MO of attacking another editor (StuRat, in this case) while making no attempt to actually answer the OP's question. Why is that behavior somehow acceptable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, based on the comment above, which to my eyes rather clearly qualifies as tendentious editing/refusing to get to a point, I am going to presume that you would not agree to a unilateral self-imposed ban from the reference desk. Is that the case, and are you oh that basis asking us to act on the assumption that you are not willing to agree to a self-imposed ban? John Carter (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to accept a ban if the instigator of today's problem, Vienna Waltz, is allowed to continue his behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been established - or even asserted by anyone apart from BB - that VW is in fact to blame here at all. The claim that he is - and that I'm furthering some pattern of harassment on his behalf - is unsubstantiated. I will therefore oppose any proposed measure which censures VW without a clear basis. Interaction bans when one party is clearly principally at fault are great for deflecting blame. I raised this ANI thread because I believe BB's behaviour needs to be closely scrutinised. Penalising VW just because BB says so is no adequate response to that. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is VW's behavior acceptable? He attacks me frequently, and he attacked StuRat today. Why is he allowed to get away with such garbage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Support six-month ban from the reference desk for Baseball Bugs, based on the material presented. I might also support sanctions against others involved, but that would probably best be dealt with elsewhere. Also, as noted by me and others above, his own conduct, which is the reason this thread was begun, has on more than one occasion fallen well short of the WP:RD/G, and I have no reason to believe it will not continue to do so should he be allowed to continue in like manner in the future without some sort of serious admonishment. And, of course, a ban would prevent such disruption from him during the period of the ban itself. I might also agree to an indefinite ban, which might be reviewable after three months, if cause for such a review were given by Baseball Bugs through his conduct elswhere during that period. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Support. I agree with John Carter. 6 month ban for Baseball bugs from the reference desk. Other bans can be discussed elsewhere. His recent behavior on my own talk page leaves me little choice. BB seems to be looking for a fight and that is not what Wikipedia is for. I am going to oppose this after a re-reading of the proposal and BMK's comment where they state: "The offer to allow the complainant to choose the sanction is especially worrisome. Also, we don't generally say "This is a tempest in a teapot, but let's get on with it and sanction somebody so we can close the thread."". This does seem a bit odd. Look, Bugs can be a controversial editor, but in the long run much of this complaint is misguided and many of the comments don't seem to be looking to far into the situation. The retard comment was made by another editor in referring to a "friend" of theirs. this got way out of hand and i have to apologize if any of my own actions prolonged this. I think we may have a situation where there is indeed a tempest in a teapot.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally unfair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

IF you feel that there is cause to request sanctions against others, please feel free to present the evidence to support that contention in a separate section. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've complained about VW before, and no one will do anything. Hypocrisy. Double-standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between "complaining," which is just so far as I can tell making accusations against others, and "presenting evidence," specifically evidence to indicate a pattern of misconduct of such nature as to provide sufficient cause for action. Please bear that in mind. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing less than a stern final warning for Bugs just based on the issue that brought about this complaint. No opinion on whether others require sanctions, nor whether stiffer sanctions are necessary in light of other disruption. "Retard" may certainly refer to someone with developmental problems, but not long ago the terms "idiot", "imbecile", "moron", "cretin", and a litany of others that I won't even repeat also referred to such individuals in various technical and medical senses, but it seems clear that it would have been very inappropriate to use those terms to refer to a developmentally-disabled person. The euphemism treadmill (or perhaps the pejoration treadmill) is a fact of life, and refusal for editors on noticeboards and help boards to recognize that a large number of people consider a specific term to be horribly offensive does not justify their use of that term. As much as I've enjoyed Bugs' efforts to lighten the mood in some cases in the past, there comes a time when we must take things seriously. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC) (stricken, see below —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC))
  • You seem to have forgotten that it was StuRat who referred to his friend as "retarded". That's not a term I'm inclined to use. They're mad at me here not because of that, but because I stood up to VW after he attacked StuRat but didn't try to answer the OP's question. That's something VW does frequently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I see nothing in [36] that constitutes any form of an attack. Referring back to your "didn't answer the OP's question" point, your comment also did not. I see a clear mentality of "he did something wrong so I can too", which is clearly not acceptable practice. —Dark 05:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right. I've stricken my recommendation since it was based solely on my mistaken reading of the diffs as Bugs using the term "retarded" to refer to an individual. I'll let those more experienced in this dispute make their recommendations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Given the history of questionable behaviour on the RD, I would be willing to support a six month ban from the reference desk. However like TenOfAllTrades, I do think that this is a scrappy solution to a more extensive problem. Also, I may be unaware of the history between the editors, but I do find references to VW's edit as an "attack" to be rather bewildering. —Dark 05:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • • • If you did know that history, you would understand. Note how VW made no effort to try to answer the OP's question. He went there solely to harass StuRat, just as he has done to me countless times, i.e. to harass a user while making no effort to answer the OP's question. In fact, even now, no one besides StuRat has provided a useful answer to the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I'd like to note again that you did not make an effort to answer the question either. Your logic implies that because VW did not answer the question, he is there to harass StuRat. But how is that any different from your comments in that thread? From what I can see, your contribution did nothing but escalate the issue. It would help your case if you provide evidence of VW actively harassing you and StuRat, as I have nothing to go on other than your word. —Dark 13:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I didn't know the answer to the OP's question. StuRat gave an answer, and then VW attacked him for it, and I stood up for StuRat. Then I asked what the right term is, and no one would answer. So I did a little google search, and the answer (or one answer, apparently preferred by professionals) turns out to be "intellectually disabled", which I posted there. So I at least contributed something factual to the debate. I'd like to know what useful or factual input you think VW contributed. As regards diffs, I don't know when or if he's attacked StuRat at other times, but I wouldn't be surprised. As to VW attacking me, look in any archive where I make a statement, and if VW has made a statement immediately after, it's most likely an attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
            • "I don't know when or if he's attacked StuRat at other times" - So basically, you are not aware of any history between VW and StuRat, but decided that this edit by itself constitutes an attack? I don't understand how that comment by itself could possibly be seen as an attack on StuRat. Also, I find your decision to "defend" StuRat from the perceived attack to be exceptionally questionable. "I at least contributed something factual" - so did VW, with his comment that the wording could be considered offensive. You're making a very poor case for yourself; I find your judgement to be biased based on your own poor interactions with VW and without any assumption of good faith. —Dark 19:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Supposing that what VW said to StuRat was factual (and the discussion here contradicts that), explain how it was of any help whatsoever to the OP. As regards good faith and VW, he destroyed my assumption of his good faith a long time ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
                • It was as much of a help to the OP as any of your subsequent comments on that thread. Regardless of what VW did, you also did absolutely nothing in that thread except to bicker with VW and other people. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if someone else makes an off-topic comment, you have free rein to do the same. Also, if you are unable to assume good faith, I suggest that you avoid all contact with the editor. You are refusing to look at your own conduct - instead, deflecting all blame towards VW without any reasonable justification or proof. —Dark 03:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • I hear you. Farther down (and later) I've changed my attitude about VW and am ready to assume good faith on his part, i.e. I've had the epiphany that he's mostly a good contributor, is not targeting me in particular, and hence I no longer have any reason to get upset with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction which singles out one party without dealing with all of those involved. Given that Bugs has a tendency to not shy away from actively pleading his own case, while one of the other parties (VW) has yet to make any kind of statement here, the attempt to sanction BB alone looks to me like a case of the squeaky wheel getting all the attention, if not outright anti-Bugs bias from some. Even-handedness -- which does not necessarily translate into equal sanctions for all -- is required here. The offer to allow the complainant to choose the sanction is especially worrisome. Also, we don't generally say "This is a tempest in a teapot, but let's get on with it and sanction somebody so we can close the thread." BMK (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - While I disagree with much of how BMK has characterised this dispute, I agree in one key respect: I don't think it should be me choosing the sanction. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's processes, and this needs input from people who are. I only started this subsection because Demiurge1000 advanced a solution and suggested I get on with it. If any admin here wishes to propose a better answer, I'm all ears.

VW commented on my talk page saying they didn't have time for this thread. I don't see why BB, who is the subject of this complaint, and who has advanced, I think, one isolated diff to support his claims about VW's behaviour, should get to dictate a sweeping resolution which penalises VW as well. Come to that, StuRat isn't the subject of this complaint either. I don't like his choice of words, but that's neither here nor there. Attempts to by BB widen the scope of this are merely a distraction. If BB thinks VW is harassing him, let him start a thread here with a collection of diffs like the one at the top of this thread, and have it out.

This thread has a lot of tangents. The specific character of the veneration of saints isn't the point here. The acceptability of so-called 'politically correct' language isn't the point. The point is that BB makes the Reference Desk an unpleasant place to be, by confrontational behaviour, constant derailing of topics, and giving unhelpful or simply false answers. I think the diffs I've provided - all from a period of about 3 days, but far from isolated - demonstrate that.

What strikes me about this thread is that BB has made no attempt to account for this behaviour. His only response has been a kind of tu quoque where he claims the complaint has no substance, and calls for sanctions against VW. There's no sign of any understanding on his part that there's a genuine problem here. As I say - I've witnessed this behaviour from BB before; nothing here is isolated. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a reasonable point above. Personally, I think the best thing that the editors at the reference desk might be able to do to make the reference desk function more easily would be to develop pages like Bibliography of encyclopedias and its related pages, go through some journals to find lists of good reference sites available at no cost which they might be able to use and perhaps generate a list of them somewhere, thus making it easier for people at the RD to find sources which might relate to questions of a particular type, maybe develop pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles, particularly for topics of a contentious or non-scientific nature, and also try to have at least one of your editors gain access to each of the databanks available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Steps of that nature are, more or less, what paid reference librarians do, and it would seem to me reasonable for those at our reference desk to do the same sort of things. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. For what it might be worth, I went through a 1986 guide to reference books and listed all those reference sources listed in it that would now be in the public domain at wikisource:User:John Carter, based on the fact that their inclusion in that work indicated tacitly and often explicitly that, despite their age, they were still considered useful. I also went through archive.org and added links to their pages relevant to the works in question. For some, more dated, topics, going through those, and other works at archive.org and elsewhere, might be another possibility. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all topic bans here as not addressing the problem - that is, a lack of civil colloquy among those named.. And noting that an interaction ban between the three is not an onerous "sanction" but a means of promoting civility at the RefDesk. Collect (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I myself would support an interaction ban on the three primaries involved at the RD and related pages. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose anything that comes out of this. Tempests and teapots and such. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, BB can be a bit of an arse sometimes, but then so can most of us RefDesk regulars, including me and everyone above. No good will come of any sanctions here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Is he page-banned already?. Out of the OP's diffs, the only one that bothers me is the removal of another user's Refdesk response. I am also plumb mystified by the "close" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis -- it looks like Bugs is presently either warned from disruption at the Refdesk or presently banned from the Refdesk depending on how you "interpret" that close. If ANI is going to work you have to be clear about what your actions actually are/were. Wnt (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. I stopped taking an interest in that AN/I case when it became apparent that TRM was going to be treated equivalently with BB, just as BB is attempting to do to VW here. I can't make head or tail of the final resolution. Can one of the admins who oversaw that case help us here, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I dropped a message at the talk page of the admin who closed the last discussion, and have received a response at my user talk page here. I myself remember seeing on one of the noticeboards the discussion about jc37's closing of this discussion and others, but don't remember the details, although I suppose anyone who wants to can look them up. Neither do I remember the subsequent alternate close to which he refers. But it does seem to have been, well, a bit of a mess. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That close enacted a page ban, but after further review on AN, the page bans for the three were vacated (by me), as there didn't really seem to be consensus for them. So no, as of now, BB is not currently topic-banned from the Refdesk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern, and take this entirely as worth only what an anonymous concern is, is that this pattern keeps repeating, and Bugs continues to blame everyone but himself, to insist that it is always other people at fault rather than himself, to refuse to admit even the possibility that the common factor in all his disputes is himself. He uses a lot of distraction and derailing tactics, to prevent any discussion of his behaviour being about the behaviour he is reponsible for and which people have questioned. He continues to post things that he knows are not true, after he has been informed that they are not true (see: the stuff about Catholics being polytheists, posted several times by him tangentially on questions about Catholicism; see his continued, though less frequent these days, insistence that any ip user familiar with Wikipedia using a new ip address is a 'sock' or a 'drive-by'). I don't think I have ever seen him admit to being wrong about something, unlike nearly every other user of the Reference Desk, unless he is faced with an admin who seems on the verge of actually blocking him.

So, my concern is that, if we simply continue to impose interaction bans between Bugs and whoever he has decided is persecuting him, eventually he will have an intercation ban with every registered user on the Desks, and then who will be able to call for action when he berates and lies to new users? 86.146.28.105 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And one of my concerns is that there are a number of editors who have taken a dislike to Bugs' style and who aren't shy about trying to get him in trouble whenever possible. Bugs does cross the line occasionally, I think even he would admit that, but then so do many of us -- after all, we're all human, there are no angels here that I am aware of. Bugs' behavior is nor particularly egregious, there are many editors who surpass him in that regard, but for some reason, Bugs attracts a fair number of detractors -- perhaps because Bugs has a quick and irreverent sense of humor, and displays it often. Most of us see that as lightening things up, but others apparently take umbrage at it.

So while we are bending over backwards to find fault in Bugs, perhaps we should also bend the other way to see that there are those who are -- not to put too fine a point on it -- out to get him if they can. That doesn't mean that every complaint about Bugs is necessarily to be disregarded, or that every complainant is part of the "I Hate Bugs" club, but it does mean that the complaints need to be closely examined to see if there's anything to them. BMK (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with DR

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

---

Someone here evidently mentioned the suicide case that I had some discussions with Tutelary about, and because of that, Miller is holding Tutelary's DR hostage. Whoever commented on that, please remove it and notify Miller that he can re-open Tutelary's DR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you - that's very unhelpful. How can we get the DR moving again? It's entirely unrelated to this. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no urgency as long as any potential BLP issues are kept out until after a proper discussion can be had. It will happen, just not right this minute when it is linked to this issue here. There's no need to sidetrack either discussion with the other. It isn't urgent: we are gradually writing an encyclopedia, not delivering up-to-date news. Calm blue ocean. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that it's this case that's less urgent. I'd rather we got the facts straight in a case with external context first, and handled this internal matter afterwards. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The DR case was inappropriately closed due to the mistaken belief that this unrelated discussion is relevant; I think it's clear enough that this is not the case. I have reopened it since the dispute still requires resolution. It's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd.23Hanged vs. found dead, the talk page discussion is at Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd#Hanged vs 'found dead'. The content issue involves points of principle that have a much wider impact than this rather silly argument. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bless you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

It wasn't inappropriately closed. The above complaint is about the reference desk and baseball bugs and the DRN filing request brings up the reference several times and the above complaint touches on the DRN case. There was more than enough cross over to make it an issue. I also felt that Bugs behavior in trying to re-open the case was a little bullying and I don't respond to that.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed like bullying. My complaint was that you were closing Tutelary's DR case because of some alleged reference here. It's not fair to penalize Tutelary for something I've allegedly been accused of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Holding hostage", "Penalizing" and other aggressive statements can be taken for bullying along with overly aggressive posts after being asked to stop commenting on my talk page, but I should apologize to you since it seems our other positive interactions seem to make me "involved" enough not to open or close. This isn't in the guidelines but it seems that one other volunteer would not re-open the case because of a conflict with another editor so, it seems that this was not an action I should have taken.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that was a personal restrictions of another volunteer and it was not a part of our guidelines. I have added content to restrict opening and closing based on interactions but this might be reverted if others find it too restrictive. We only have about 5 volunteers that are active and it could restrict DRN too much in the opinion of others.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe my words were a bit too strong. Emotion-driven. And I seem to recall that you and I used to get along well, so I am hopeful that we can return to that status. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't hold grudges and see you as a net positive for the project as many editors do. I have no problem with you.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

VW

Well, I guess I owe somebody an apology, though I'm not sure who. Certainly not Viennese Waltz (talk · contribs). In response to questions earlier about diffs demonstrating my complaints about VW, jI went looking through the ref desk archives for "viennese waltz". My intention was to try to find the time he told me that showing me up in front of the OP was purposeful. I didn't find that, but I've had the epiphany that "it's not just me." He's that way with most anybody, including not just folks like StuRat, Medeis, et al, but with other users, including OP's. In one case, he told a user to stop asking so many questions about some subject or other. (If that isn't nannyism, I don't know what is.) He's been doing this for at least four years. (The first archive item that turns up is an attack on StuRat in the summer of 2010). I must be resigned to the reality that VW is just naturally snippy with everyone, and nothing is going to change that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any diffs to support those assertions? NE Ent 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I could construct a list. But you could just do what I did, and look in the archive for the user's name. I scanned through a few pages of it. The very first item that showed up was a snippy comment at StuRat, nearly four years ago.[37] And by the way, I have never been able to figure out why the archives turn up in random order instead of by date, but that's another story. It's important to note that most of VW's comments appear to be factual rather than attacking. And my whole point in bringing this up is to say that I've changed my mind about VW, and won't be complaining at him anymore. (I'm too often an idiot, but I can learn eventually.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm impressed by this change of heart. I'd like to suggest that on this basis we close this thread and try to bury the hatchet. I can't swear that neither of us will upset the other again, but I'd rather try more civil means once again. @Baseball Bugs:, if you're agreeable, shall we abandon this spat and try to both do some good around the site? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This can be closed

Admins - as discussed above, Bugs and I are both content to close this and try again to be more productive. Could the next person who knows how to close one of these things please do so? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I just received a legal threat over the phone about Yank Barry

The caller refused to identify himself, but "just wanted to let me know" that legal action would proceed tomorrow. I directed him to the Wikipedia legal department, but he insisted that it would be directed toward editors. - Richfife (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• A recent SPA
• A slightly less recent SPA

Neither of them seem to be on the verge of throwing around legal threats, though.

If you should get any more phone calls, do also let them know about the talk page or about OTRS (not in those words). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also let them know that editing to balance the article properly continues - I've just blanked large parts of it per WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There was undue weight, and use of primary sources, but some of the information removed appeared to be properly sourced - mainstream, non-tabloid newspapers - including one described as a newspaper of record, and was relevant to the article. Peter James (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No good being appeared to be properly sourced. Get it right, then include it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're asserting that it was "not properly sourced", but not getting into specifics. How is it not properly sourced? The sources look fine to me and to multiple other editors. Almost none of the text removed by you was added by me, by the way. - Richfife (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to notify the WMF legal department at legalwikimedia.org or, if you feel it is urgent, at emergencywikimedia.org where someone will make sure the right people see it. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: please do not contact emergencywikimedia.org except to report serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc. We cannot help with legal threats. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. Struck. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Richfife, have you ever put your phone number on Wikipedia as a contact number? I ask because if you haven't, something is seriously wrong here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not. However, as a personal point, I make sure I am easy to contact. I'm in the phone book, etc. As I mentioned though, there was no caller ID and the caller refused to identify themselves. So far, just a single data point. An attempt at a chilling effect, I assume. - Richfife (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Has there been any particularly belligerent users or IPs editing about Yank Barry as of late? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Could be, could be - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You might do some Googling on your name and phone number. Someone out there might be bragging about having heckled you.--v/r - TP 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh. Let 'em heckle. - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: "User:Richfife encouraged people to "heckle" him in person, and then they did so". Excuse me? Since when is having a listed phone number an invitation to heckle? All I said was I didn't care, not that I was encouraging it. Is there any actual evidence that I'm being heckled? I just checked and came up with nothing. Yank Barry has a history of attempting to shut down criticism and there's no evidence that this isn't more the same. - Richfife (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess what, buddy. Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy... we don't care about your cause any more than anyone else does. Begone! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that this was an off Wikipedia legal threat directed at multiple editors and needs to be taken seriously, right? - Richfife (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I am taking it hugely seriously. Just look at my face. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the deletions made by Demiurge1000 [38] being overreaction to the threat. It's well cited that the subject of the article was convicted of extortion. The Texas prison deal is also well cited. That deletion should have been discussed on Talk first. This article has been the subject of massive COI editing, extensive sockpuppeting, and is about someone who is heavily into self-promotion (he has a PR agency and is having a movie made about himself) and multi-level marketing. It was originally created by an SPA as a promotional piece, mentioned as such on the COI board, and then a number of experienced editors started finding more info about the article's subject. That's how we got here. John Nagle (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, see WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly in regards to this edit, you've been repeatedly nakedly asserting that the sourcing isn't good enough and not responding to people pointing out that the sourcing seems fine and asking for more detail. Are you too busy in real life right now? What's going on? - Richfife (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above brief "No" could use some expansion. Let's discuss the content issues on Talk:Yank Barry. Thanks. As for the threat, I've edited the Yank Barry article, I edit under my own name and am easy to contact, and haven't received any threats. John Nagle (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think what Demiurge1000 means to say is WP:COATRACK. We have a BLP subject here where 85% of the article is negative. Per WP:UNDUE, the article needs to be balanced. The negative info needs to be rewritten in the way that it doesn't hijack the article disproportionate to this person's life.--v/r - TP 06:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If ~85% of media coverage of the subject is negative, "balancing" the article would be what would make it POV/UNDUE. (Not saying that's necessarily the case in this particular case, but an "85% negative article" is not, necessarily, automatically UNDUE.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had much the same concerns as TParis since I first got involved at the article. It used to be more blatant, the article was using the "criminal" infobox and the lead focused more heavily on his legal problems. The difficulty we keep running into is that there are two kinds of sources for Yank Barry. There are independent sources which are overwhelmingly negative, and there are press releases (or news articles that cite press releases) that are positive. It's difficult to get a balanced article when the press is focused on the problems he's had, and when there is a very blatant PR campaign to improve his image (a PR campaign that extends to Wikipedia; the article has been hit multiple times by sockpuppets connected to his organization as well as this recent personal threat against Richfife). I first got involved in the article from a request at WP:COIN because of those problems. I wish there was reliable coverage of such basic biographical information as his childhood and family, his marital history, even his musical and business career. Maybe someone with better resources and/or research skills can help out. -- Atama頭 15:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To help illustrate how widespread the problem at the article has been, here is a list of single-purpose accounts who have only edited this article or edited other articles related to Yank Barry, just in 2014 (there were more in the past):

• Gogvc (talk · contribs) - Since blocked for being a promotional account, username matches the domain name of Yank Barry's charity organization web site.
• Theprincessmom1 (talk · contribs) - A CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Gogvc, also blocked.
• Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs) - The original creator of the article, now blocked for "editing against consensus, likely COI, plugging of one subject, etc.".
• Fmrjournalist (talk · contribs) - Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Accurateinfo973.
• Npl10 (talk · contribs) - Not blocked, and admittedly not editing promotionally, has only edited to remove information about an upcoming film Barry is allegedly producing.
• Bestmomever (talk · contribs) - A suspected sock puppet of Gogvc, CU says it is a "likely" match to Gogvc, the SPI case is awaiting administration.
• BeadCatz (talk · contribs) - Just showed up today, editing in a very promotional manner and without sources.

Again, this is just since January of this year. And this only includes the accounts, there have been numerous IPs making such edits, and there have been similar SPAs editing since the article's creation in 2010, including those whose usernames blatantly connected them to Barry's organization. -- Atama頭 17:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and new SPA BeadCatz (talk · contribs) just re-inserted the bogus info which Atama had just deleted. [39] The subject of the article employs a PR agency ("The Publicity Agency", Tampa, FL)[40] to polish his image, and that does seem to extend to Wikipedia. We've been to COIN twice, AN/I three times, and sockpuppet investigations as listed above. The edits driven by the PR effort are so inept and heavy-handed that they're more annoying than effective. Kind of like the anonymous phone threat. It may be time for semi-protection, just to reduce the noise level. John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I warned BeadCatz after they violated WP:3RR at the article (they have reverted 4 other editors today). Another revert and I'll report at WP:ANEW (I won't bother to report someone for violating it if they hadn't been alerted to the rule first, especially a new editor - I assume they are new). Having SPAs show up to edit war and insert promotion isn't unusual at this article, unfortunately, and it's one reason why it has been a challenge to constructively develop it. -- Atama頭 18:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, BeadCatz, with a Wikipedia career of 2 hours, just hit 4RR at Yank Barry.[41]. They've been reverted by three different editors, and given multiple warnings. Please pull their plug, and I'd suggest a week of semi-protection so we can do something else for a while. John Nagle (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that the account was created in 2012. Are we dealing with a marketing firm sock farm?--v/r - TP 18:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked all the other possible socks listed above. All the others were newly registered, except for the one that created the Yank Barry article four years ago. John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo5269 (talk · contribs). It's like drinking from an SPA firehose. - Richfife (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the Dr did make two other edits prior to posting to the Yank Barry talk page, to unrelated articles (the biographies of a professional wrestler and an American football player). So this doesn't fit the pattern of previous SPAs. Though it does seem odd to show up out of nowhere to make practically the same argument of older SPAs. Also, I checked the creation log and the new account was created 4 hours before the block of BeadCatz so that doesn't suggest block evasion to me. -- Atama頭 22:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the possibility they learnt the trick many SPAs learn of at least trying to appear interested in other stuff can't be ruled out. The account creation is interesting. Creating before a block isn't a definite sign that it isn't block evasion since it isn't uncommon among block evaders, particularly persistent ones, to create and perhaps even start using a sleeper before they are blocked. Particularly if it's clear they are likely to be blocked. However it seems BeadCatz only had one edit, to their sandbox, when the new account was created so it doesn't seem it was obvious they would be blocked, unless perhaps they'd been around long enough to recognise that there's a fair chance the BeadCatz would be quickly blocked. Alternatively, they may have been hoping for multiple simultaenous socks. Another possibility is there's some degree of meatpuppetry and the SPAs actually belong to at least 2 different people. In which case the BeadCatz and Dr could be different editors. Either way while it may be premature to block, I think the Dr account should be carefully monitored, although I also wonder if it will stay around anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards meatpuppetry right now, but the fairly advanced level of the edits (properly formatted external link summaries for instance) makes me wonder. - Richfife (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The new "Dr Gonzo5269" editor is commenting on the talk page, not editing the article. We can try to communicate with them. That's progress. I put a note to the Yank Barry PR operation on User_talk:BeadCatz#Promotional_editing, pointing out that what they're doing is counterproductive. Maybe they'll engage more. Note to Barry's PR operation, if you're reading this: Get one account, make it clear you represent Barry, and discuss what you want to say on Talk before editing the article. You might get somewhere. Using lots of new accounts making hit and run edits is not going to get you anywhere. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out I am a new account so I'm not totally clear what the issue is here but I do not appreciate my name being thrown around in this manner. I have many interests on Wikipedia. I am a fan of Steve Van Zandt and it was through following him I heard of Yank Barry. I remembered liking the song "Louie Louie" as a kid. I began to do some research and it was from that I learned of the multiple Noble Peace Prize nominations which I happen to find rather impressive. Any info I post about Yank Barry will be something that has been reported in the past. I do know the Richfife account replied to my post in a heartbeat. Does he have something against Yank Barry? From my limited initial research I have found mostly positive information about Yank Barry. He seems to be genuinely helping the refugees from Syria. I will continue my research as I am now thoroughly intrigued by this whole ordeal. I do not see why there is a fight here or why some editors are against Yank Barry. Having said that I am not a meat puppet, a sock puppet, and I certainly didn't call anyone. As long as I cite my sources I don't see any problem with having a positive opinion about Yank Barry, Stephen Neal, Ben Askren, or anyone else I decide to take an interest in. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Richfife continues adding unsourced material on BLP Yank_Barry

This user is clearly violating BLP rules and directly going against WP BLP rules. He has made a claim that the subject filed bankruptcy. This is a serious accusation on a BLP page. It must be backed up with actual and real court documents of the bankruptcy filing and charge off. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. But USer:Richfife continues to ignore this. This is not the first instance of his complete disregard for the serious nature of such actions on a BLP. There is a zero tolerance policy on this matter as outlined by Jimmy Wales policy here: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.

This page has seen so much negative and clearly biased postings aimed at causing financial harm to the subject. I went through the entire Talk:Yank_Barry#Nobel_Peace_Prize_nominee and was shocked to see this statement by User:Richfife, Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't. My guess is that he will periodically "wait for the dust to settle" and come back. Keep the page on your watchlists. on 03:59, 14 April 2014. This user should be blocked immediately to maintain the integrity of WP. (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

And how do we know you're not hired by Yank Barry to whitewash his article, hm? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Same way I might ask, Jeske, why I should trust you to be balanced and neutral about a topic of this nature? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC to Demiurge) Ganberreh has, including this An/I post, 6 edits to his name, all about or on the talk page of Yank Barry, all made today despite the account being made on 23 May. If you've read the above thread, then you should know that there is a serious concern that that article is the centre of a concerted PR campaign, so a new editor coming on and joining the debate pro-Barry should be put under more scrutiny than normal. I suspect Ganberreh is associated with the PR campaign. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a WP:RS reliable source for the bankruptcy.[42] It's an article in ArtNews written by a notable Bloomberg writer, William D. Cohan. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The material on the bankruptcu is sourced, is sourced to a reliable source (the Montreal Gazette), and has been since it was added. The claim that we need court documents rather than newspaper coverage is a call for primary sources over secondary one, which flies right in the face of WP:SECONDARY. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Montreal Gazette is not reliable until you can proof it. That is a basic common need for all editors to be comfortable with the accuracy of the information. Unless you can get a copy of it an upload for reading, it is not reliable. If we accept this, there will be no end to editors say, "trust me" I have the backup. the burden is on you to backup your content, not the other way around. That is a basic requirement, you know that. Then ArtNews, if that one passing statement is accepted, then all passing statements on all the other articles written in so many articles I have found on CNN should be admitted. But those have been struck out claiming them to be not well sourced. We cannot have double standards and selective here. The standards of source acceptance need to apply to keep this page neutral. (Ganbarreh (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

from WP:OFFLINE "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. In fact, many great sources are only available offline." If you want to confirm an offline source, then you should be the one that looks through the Montreal Gazette's news archives. To claim that a source is not reliable because it is not online is complete WP:BULLOCKS. —Farix (t | c) 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is the burden of the editor who posted it to back up and confirm the source. (Ganbarreh (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

No it's not, Ganbarreh, please read WP:BURDEN. Per the footnote there, "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)." At this point, you are the one with the obligation, per our verifiability policy. And you have two different sources to dispute now. -- Atama頭 16:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As Atama has stated, Richfife has met his end of WP:BURDEN by providing a reference to a reference to a reliable, third-party source. You, however, are not assuming good faith by claiming that because the source is not online, it must be "fake" without providing any evidence to support your argument. —Farix (t | c) 12:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We are threatening his livelihood and rightly so

That's a quote. Is that what Wikipedia is for? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is a partial quote, missing an opening parenthesis... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a reliable source for Barry's sources of income being somewhat sketchy, a CTV expose from 2002.[43] Excerpt: "Barry then went after the better life with a vengeance. Today as a member of the ultra-exclusive Ocean View Golf Club, Barry claims he makes his money from VitaPro and managing offshore investments. But many people say that's just a cover. They think Yank Barry is just a smooth talker with questionable business practices. Investigative journalist David Marchant is one of the few reporters keeping an eye on the world of offshore banking...". The details follow at the link given. That CTV article is far, far more negative on Barry than the Wikipedia article. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade: It was a wildly inappropriate comment on my part and I admit it. What I wanted was to point out was that this was a situation that was likely to spin out of control and I semi-consciously resorted to overheated language to make my point. I wound up making rather more points that I intended to. That being said, this is not a case where I'm standing on the mountaintop crusading solo against Barry. Many, many people are watching the article from both sides and I hope that we are all watching each other's backs to make sure we don't go over the line when it comes to the article itself. - Richfife (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem with SPAs at that article. Agreed? There's also a problem with SPAs getting riled up to participate there because they think people biased against them are dominating the discussion there.

Did you give them a very good reason to think that? Yes.

Is there a lack of people willing and able to deal with the SPA problem there? No.

Richfife, would it hurt you a great deal to take a break from that article for a month or two?

The same question for the other accounts that have made a very large number of edits there recently.--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And you think that the endless stream of pro-Berry SPAs is going to take a break from the article because you ask then to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The semi-protection will help. Since I'm not obsessed with the topic (and really don't care about it at all), I quite frankly have absolutely no objection to it being full protected until the SPAs (and other obsessives) get bored enough to either go away or discuss it properly on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to think about it for a bit, but I'm leaning towards no for a number of reasons. First, whether you want to take it seriously or not, there was an effort to scare both myself and a number of other unnamed editors off the article IRL in the form of a threatening phone call. This brings things perilously close to negotiating with terrorists. Second, given the suspicion of of sockpuppetry, it's not clear who the editors with large numbers of edits actually are. Third, comment on the edits, not the editor. As of late, the majority of my edits to the article proper have been either obviously neutral or positive in nature. Fourth, lets call another spade a spade, I don't think you're particularly objective about me either. "Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy" doesn't exactly line up with the changes I've made to the page. I hadn't even heard of him until a routine run of edits to remove non-notable Nobel peace prize nominations sparked an explosion. - Richfife (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I've only made three edits on Yank Barry during May 2014. I'd been looking at business-related COI problems from WP:COIN, such as Banc de Binary, Riak, and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, where, like Yank Barry, there's heavy promotional editing. I've made lots of comments on the Yank Barry talk page after finding sources, and I've been on WP:COIN, WP:ANI, and WP:BLPN due to the COI/SPA/sock problems. I'd never heard of Yank Barry until the article popped up on WP:COIN. There's general consensus from the editors involved who have a track record on Wikipedia outside Yank Barry articles. Disagreements are hammered out on talk. There's no edit warring going on between any non-SPA accounts. All the trouble is coming from editors with very narrow editing interests. It's not clear how those editors are connected, but it's clear that as soon as one is blocked, another pops up. Admins, figure out a way to get us out of whack-a-mole mode. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that Richfife currently faces bullying in the form of legal threats, I support his brave decision to stay with the article. We should stand against such attempts to control who is involved in Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I seem to possibly be among the group mentioned in a post above, I will respond. I only care about the verifiable facts on any article I edit on Wikipedia. I only care about how articles reflect on Wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedia. Sometimes when I find articles that are not as good as they could be, then I'll try to fix the issues whatever they are - that's what I'm here for...to edit. If other editors misinterpret my efforts to source statements, to keep a dispassionate tone, to maintain a neutral point of view in any Wikipedia article, as being either for or against any issue or person, that has not ever been nor ever will be my intent. I have attempted to discuss my edits on Yank Barry on its associated talk page. I have attempted to place Welcome templates on any new editor's talk page who edits the article. I have done nothing on the Yank Barry article that would necessitate my having to take a break from editing it, I have done nothing there that I need to apologize for. Shearonink (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Progress

There's been a little progress. We have some new editors working on the article, Editingisthegame (talk · contribs) (5 days on Wikipedia, made a few edits on other articles before focusing on Barry-related articles) and Ganbarreh (talk · contribs) (4 days on Wikipedia, Barry-related articles only). These new editors write on talk pages and can be argued with. This is an improvement over the previous long string of rather inept SPAs and socks. The new editors demonstrate some expertise with Wikipedia, so they're probably not really new. We'll see what happens next. It looks like we don't need admin intervention right now, but please keep watching the article. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Ganbarreh reminds me so very, very much of Accurateinfo973, who also argued extensively on the article talk page. In particular, this comment to me smells fishy, with the phrase "malicious campaign" reminding me of this comment from Accurateinfo973 talking about a "smear campaign". The tendentious repetition of the same argument is also similar. I've been debating whether or not to make another entry at the SPI, I'm thinking I will now.

In the case of Editingisthegame, though, I don't feel like this editor is the same. They're new, yes, but they aren't focused on Yank Barry, nor are their edits promotional; to the contrary they've been arguing against Ganberreh too. They've been pretty even-handed both on the discussion page and on the main article, and I welcome their input. -- Atama頭 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I may have written my comment above too soon. Today we have new EditorLouisiana (talk · contribs), editing only the talk page of Yank Barry. The general editing trend of the SPAs is 1) insist that Barry was a member of The Kingsmen, and 2) keep the "Nobel peace prize nomination" in the article. It's going to be a long summer. John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ban evasion

86.157.103.109 is unmistakenly a community ban evasion by User:Jagged 85. The same range of topics, the same bias, the same sloppy research, edited from the same broad geographical region (London). See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#May 2014 Anon IP edits to Muslim history of science articles. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked one week for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, I have listed the IP's edits at Cleanup12. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

On closer inspection, Jagged 85 has been avoiding his ban for some time now. Several more IPs popped up while I undid the edits of 86.157.103.109:

• 86.186.44.113
• 87.81.139.93
• 86.157.99.120

All are from London, too. It seems the user is trying to make a comeback at Wikipedia below the radar. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree 86.186.44.113 and 86.157.99.120 are Jagged_85. I'm less certain about 87.81.139.93 (I wasn't aware Jagged_85 had such an interest in martial arts), however the edits to Hospital, Water wheel and Watermill are all suspicious. --Merlinme (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This diff [44] is enough to convince me that 87.81.139.93 is sock the same edit can be found in History/Zosimos_of_Panopolis J8079s (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Following are the details referred to by J8079s above. The edit by 87.81.139.93 (7 May 2014) is almost identical to the last of the following edits by Jagged_85 at Zosimos of Panopolis (the edit changes the first line to the second):

• 17 August 2008
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was a Greek alchemist and Gnostic Mystic
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an ancient Egyptian alchemist and Gnostic mystic
• 12 September 2008
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an ancient Egyptian
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an Egyptian
• 6 March 2010
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an Greek or Egyptian
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an Egyptian or Greek

References

Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation has been opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jagged_85--Merlinme (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

PresidentistVB

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

---

The behavior of this user seems to me wholly unacceptable including personal attacks (for example referring to other users as monkeys diff). A review of this situation seems long overdue. --_nonsense ferret 09:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Content redacted per some policy I read somewhere.] PresidentistVB (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Monkey Two (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

the use of multiple misleading signatures on the same talk page is certainly something I have advised you against (diff). --_nonsense ferret 13:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A few more things I'll submit since there is a mountain of information and it can be hard to file through it all, especially since he attempted to delete most of the things he's said from the relevant talk pages. Monkey Two has lead other editors to believe he was new to Wikipedia only to reveal almost a week later that he's had at least one other account before on WP. Here he posted on his page that he was an administrator and another administrator had to remove it.Here he threatened to "level" me and threatened hostility if I didn't accept his OR arguments. When he couldn't provide any reliable secondary sources to support his OR arguments, he turned to "tag bombing" the article. When they were removed by another editor and replaced with a single factual accuracy dispute tag, he went back and tagged the entire lead again. I was willing to try DRN and was waiting for him to create a post before addressing any of these issues, but since another editor has stepped in, I guess that's at of the question now.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is very important to separate questions about the appropriateness of editor behaviour and substantive decisions about article content. I would suggest the former only are suitable for discussion here. --_nonsense ferret 17:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Content redacted per some policy I read somewhere.] Dr. Matt (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with nonsenseferret, which is why I didn't post any concerns about content and all of my diffs speak to behavioral issues. Also, is there something against posting entire articles to talk page sections? He's done this before on another user's talk page, and now he posted another full WP article to the John Punch talk page here. I don't know if a WP policy says anything about this specifically, but I do feel it's rather disruptive. However, this is only a drop in the bucket compared to how he's obliterated the talk page by adding over 20 new sections and subsections and dissecting/transplanting previous discussions so those conversation no longer make sense and are impossible to follow.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Ibid.]Dr. Matt (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

no idea what any of this means, but if the allegation is that I have removed something from your revision history, then I'm sure anyone will be happy to confirm this is technically impossible. --_nonsense ferret 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Ibid]Dr. Matt (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

:My reply seems to have been deleted so I will repost it - I have no idea what any of this means, but if the allegation is that I have removed something from your revision history, then I'm sure anyone will be happy to confirm this is technically impossible. --_nonsense ferret 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

in fact my statement above was restored by another user, so striking the additional copy. --_nonsense ferret 21:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I should be very grateful if you could confirm whether the above comment should be taken as a statement of intent to bring legal proceedings in this matter - I think it is very important to be clear about what such comments mean, just so there is no misunderstanding. --_nonsense ferret 21:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Ibid]Dr. Matt (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sure it would be much easier for everyone to keep this conversation together - why not post here --_nonsense ferret 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X]I concur. See below. PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• He cannot; he's been blocked (by me) for a whole whackload of reasons that are painfully obvious to all the panda ₯’ 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X]Not "all." PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

...and he's removed his block notice. I'll let someone else take care of that the panda ₯’ 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X]He took care of it himself and thanks you for telling him privately. PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Er, lest there be any confusion or misunderstanding, blocked users are free to remove block notices from their own talk pages. There is no requirement that they wear a scarlet letter for the duration of their block, so for the moment there is nothing to "take care of". Encouraging someone else to go to his talk page and replace the block notice is just poking the bear. (And it's pretty obvious that this particular editor is already more than sufficiently wound up....)

A problem only arises if a blocked editor removes notices related to his or her block and then requests unblocking—the concern in such a situation is that an editor may be attempting to conceal or mislead regarding the reasons for their block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. They may not remove the block notice while blocked. I remember the RFC where that was clarified quite well. If someone has removed that wording, then they did it in violation of the RFC the panda ₯’ 00:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to call 'citation needed' on that. If an editor isn't in the process of appealing the block, the block notice isn't critical information. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I also thought the previous discussions had decided that blocked editors could remove the block notice (if not appealing the block), but it appears that is not the case—for example, see WT:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?. I suspect a major RfC will be needed to clarify the issue because the WP:BLANKING wording is very waffly and there are two radically different interpretations of what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That wording at WP:BLANKING just isn't how things are done. "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." "Any other notice"? Seriously? An AN/I discussion or an ArbCom decision imposes a topic ban or interaction ban, and the affected user can never remove that notice from his talk page? I know that that isn't enforced. Ever, anywhere.

Even a block notice (or a declined unblock request) is only important information if the user is in the process of appealing the block. If a blocked user blanks his talk page in a fit of pique, we don't force him to put the block notice back up. I hope that an admin who tried to edit war over that sort of nonsense would get little sympathy here—as the only purpose to doing so is to piss off the blocked editor in hopes of provoking them into actions that might draw a longer block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that the sort of ambulance-chasing non-admins that obsessively stalk this board, go around blocked users' talk pages expressly for the purpose of re-adding block notices even where the blocked editor is not making an appeal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I have suggested a modification of the extant guideline at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Current wording of the first bullet does not reflect actual practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The tone and language used by PresidentistVB sounds strangely familiar, and not in a good way. As for "it may be evidence", are we to take this as an indication that he is headed for Trenton, NJ? Guy (Help!) 19:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

[X]I hope my Talk page comment clarified it for you, nonsenseferret. If not, the answer most certainly is "no." The statement was to let anyone and everyone who would vapidly prosecute another user in a public venue, especially one with that user's name on it, and even if invited to do so, know that they would be the most likely subjects of such a proceeding, and not WP. I'm sorry for you all that you felt the question had to be asked; more so because you didn't know where I was going with it, and i think all of you should have. (And whatever happened to new user good faith/trust? - And yes, Scoobydunk, I am a new user, if 5-7 weeks is considered new. My previous account was used, to my recollection, over a period of years past to upload images.) I don't correct people, usually; but in here, I felt it my duty. The rules of the page specifically state, "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here." I take that to mean, since it is reiterated twice in the Terms of Use policy, "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or [if a] potential [for] libel/defamation exists, do not post it here," because that is what it should say, according to the section of Wikimedia Foundation's article, subtitled "Disputes and lawsuits." It almost makes titling a section on this page with a user's name an invitation. And I'll be a monkey's uncle, because I don't know what could be so important as to incite anyone to take that kind of risk, especially, in this case, when I don't even know why the section was created in the first place. Now, unless someone wants to make an accurate allegation (I've already told the Oversight Committee why none of Scoobydunk's assertions were anything more that I could tell - and I would know- than self-incriminating evidence of something, possibly stalking), then I make the motion that this section be considered for deletion, so I can get out of here. Thanks. PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• Floquenbeam, PresidentistVB also removed a large number of their comments from this thread. Is this really acceptable, even under WP:REDACTED? It essentially removes most of the context, which might be useful at some later date. G S Palmer (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I know he did, and no it's not really kosher. But at this point I can't imagine any benefit (now or in the future) to trying to add them back. If you're asking my opinion, I'd just leave it alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks made by editor, after being asked to stop

User:Cebr1979 continues to make personal attacks against myself, despite asking them to refrain from me. They claim I am targetting and attacking them, when in fact, I am not. I am merely working based on the act of the Wikipedia Soap Project, and other policies held by Wikipedia currently in place.

1. Attack 1
2. Attack 2
3. Attack 3
4. Attack 4 (blatantly calling me "silly" which I see as a personal attack speaking on part of my editing, and not my edits)
5. Attack 5
6. Attack 6 (After I apologised for making them feel bullied, which I explained was not my intentions, was told I am trying to show superiority -- which I am not -- and claims I like to do things because I like to do them my way, which I do not. My edits are always made in the best wishes of Wikipedia, and following the procedures/policies/decisions decided by projects and other users)
7. Attack 7 (Saying I hide behind "Civil" whenever "I'm wrong")
8. Attack 8

While my edits can be seen as harsh and blunt, I am merely editing in the consistency of the quality soap articles have been held to over the past few years. My creditability and long-standing edit history of soap articles, and other non-soap related articles proves what a valued and valuable member of the editing community I am. My edits are in good faith and while I'm sure 1979's are too, their continued belief that I am against them, while I am not, are completely unfounded. While I do admit, I can be brash and (at select times) seen as potentially owning pages, but that is not the case. Soap articles are just continually vandalised with fancruft editing to believe what they should be, and as one of the sole editors of soap articles, am trying to keep the integrity of the articles. And being attacked, and talked poorly of, is demeaning my character and creditability on this website. I took discussions to talk pages, and still received attacks, claiming I owned the page(s), yet I have never once taken "ownership" of something or claimed it was "mine". And then being called a "bully", which I am far from being, is hurtful as someone who has been bullied both online and offline. My brashness can sometimes be seen as something it is not, but I would never, ever bully (intentionally, unintentionally) another person, online or not. I apologised to them for making them feel bullied, but their continued inability to remain civil and refrain from personally attacking, is something that must go on notice. As much as I tried to keep discussions to edit-related only, said user kept trying to make it a personal attack on my editing skills and intentions. I am willing to answer any questions the admins may have for me, as I do feel I was acting in the best intentions of Wikipedia and the projects that protect soap opera articles, in the best intentions for Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"While my edits can be seen as harsh and blunt..." So he or she knows they come off that way, and continue to do it... Hmm???? He or she is also bullying the newbies, creating policies that can't be verified and claiming to know more about a show than the show itself! When I make edits, he or she literaly follows me around from page to page reverting everything I do with no explanation as to why he or she has reverted it and, when I ask, he or she deletes my questions from his or she talk page to make it look I never asked!!! Does this sound like "good faith" on his or her part??? Everything can be verified by simply checking his or her edit history.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, whenever I reverted anything (concerning you or anything else) I included an edit-summary, explaining why I did so. Once again, being personally attacked. I do not simply follow you. You just happen to edit pages on my Watchlist, etc. And no, my removal from the talk page (as I explained and was ignored) was because of OCD tendencies to keep my talk page consistent. And how a user edits their talk page is their own wish to do so. If I remove a discussion, I am allowed per Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Another thing livelikemusic seems to believe is a wiki policy is that a television show's credits cannot be used as a reliable source... Would a show not know more about its own show than other third party links? I also stumbled upon this:

"I checked out that page and found nothing about not using credits of a TV show. In fact I found this page, which states you can use TV episode info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings So, until you point me to the correct page that says you can't use TV credits as a source, please do not revert my edits. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)"

Could you please elaborate? Why are show credits not considered a reliable source when discussing a show credits??? Thank you in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is also very interesting: "My point is, from those two links, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources , a consensus has already been reached by Wiki in regards to the use of TV credits. My confusion is that you are saying a consensus is "needed to be reached", while I am saying that a consensus (based on those two links) has already been reached. So, having read those two links, what are your thoughts on the matter? Also, Livelikemusic, you were the one who asked for a discussion on this matter, but have yet to say anything since asking for this discussion, so I'd like to hear your thoughts about things after having read those two links. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)" Cebr1979 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My discussions with another editor are not what's being discussed right now. You're continuing to make this a personal attack on me, which is what you're being reported for. Per the Wiki SoapProject, and its editors, the credits were deemed unreliable, due to it not being third-party and inconsistencies and false things found. Why bring up past discussions from last year, as well? Once again, your continuing to use my discussions with another editor as an attempt to attack me personally. Especially since shows themselves state they do NOT comment on contract status or negotiations. That's why third-parties are required, they CAN talk about them, and you're pulling quotes from discussions about other subjects where I did respond. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How is asking for clarification on whether or not a show's credits are a reliable source a personal attack on you? You know what else I want clarification on? What you wouldn't consider a personal attack! Are those your two favourite words? Cebr1979 (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And regardless, a show's rep does not usually comment on contract status when called for an interview. A show's credits are not a rep giving an interview. They are the definitive source and not a rep doing the talking. You are continuing to get silly now, you're grasping to keep your precious personal interpretations of wiki policies in tact so you can remain supreme editor of your favourite pages. That's not a personal attack, that's just what you're doing.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, it's not what I'm doing. And it is a personal attack, as you're talking about ME, not the edits themselves. I've given multiple sources of your personally attacking me, especially after I asked you to stop, and you are not attempting to show your own form of owning a page. You consistently discussing ME and not the content alone is a personal attack, per Wikipedia policy as dictated. That is why you've been reported, and instead of attempting to defend yourself, you'd drudged up past discussions which have either settled or just fizzled, and continued to make said-attacks. Continually calling me silly, especially in a hidden note on a cast member page, is a personal attack, which defames my editing on Wikipedia and can be seen as libelous. And claiming I'm doing it to reign "supreme", which I have never set out to be or done, is once again personal. My next response will be to an Admin, only. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Good. Now, to the admin who sees this: I am asking for you to elaborate as to livelikemusic's personal interpretation of show credits not being a credible source. Clearly, there are others who disagree with him or her, not just me, and I would like confirmation. If he or she feels that is a personal attack against him or her, so be it. Cebr1979 (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Cebr1979 and Jason47a, please contain yourselves and wait for an administrator to pick up on this thread. At the moment, you are misusing this board by treating it as an unruly article talk page, and making a public spectacle of your uncivil behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing actual attacks. Sarcasm and frustration, yes, as well as accusations of WP:OWN and WP:BITE, but this was the only post that is obviously unacceptable. However, by the standards livelikemusic is holding Cebr1979 to, livelikemusic made a personal attack on @Jason47a: as well.

As a matter of fact, I can't locate any discussion at WP:SOAPS's talk forbidding the use of show credits -- @Livelikemusic:, could you please link to it for us? Otherwise, there does need to be a proper discussion as to whether or not credits would fall under WP:SELFPUB as sources which cannot be used as the base of an article, but can still be used in an article for reasonably non-controversial statements (with third-party sources being handy for additional verification). (That appears to be the rational behind Wikipedia:MOSTV#Cast_information, which actually calls for the use of the original broadcast credits, which would explain why WP:TV has absolutely no problem whatsoever with show credits). Without a link to a discussion or guideline clearly establishing the consensus that credits are not to be used for soap operas when they are used for all other TV shows, this falls under WP:SPADE instead of WP:NPA. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian. I agree with your assessment of "Without a link to a discussion or guideline clearly establishing the consensus that credits are not to be used for soap operas when they are used for all other TV shows, this falls under WP:SPADE instead of WP:NPA." Hopefully livelikemusic can provide a link to such a discussion and/or guideline otherwise edits quoting show credits will have to be accepted by him or her.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Jason47's comments were old that I was quoting (hence me signing my name after them and what Jason said was in quotes with the original dates attached). He's not a part of this conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This board is not for the discussion of the reliability of show credits. Please use the proper dispute resolution process if you are unable to come to a suitable agreement on the talk page regarding the usage of such sources. Now regarding behavior, this is ridiculously childish. However although the majority of the diffs show incivility and a failure to assume good faith, they are not actionable. I would advise both parties to stop accusing the other of nefarious intent and talk the changes through. This is not a school playground, stop calling each other names and communicate. Calling someone silly is not going to get you anywhere. —Dark 10:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I never called anyone a name, and yes it does violate personal attack policies, since the user spoke on me as an edtior and not on the edits themselves. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

livelikemusic... It's done now.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel it is.... The policy clearly states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." So unless Wiki admins do not wish to follow what they've written, action needs to be taken. So unless an ADMIN and ADMIN ONLY can explain how the edits did NOT violate what it set in written word, it is not over for me. I'm tired of injustice on this website. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the accusations of article ownership and biting to be serious personal attacks that merit a block, in this case. Unless you can provide evidence of recent severe ad hominem attacks, I don't think any admin action will be effective at the current time. Yes his comments are unfounded and doesn't assume good faith, but I do not think it is actionable. As long as Cebr understands that these accusations are very unhelpful and detrimental to proper discussion and promises to refrain from making them in the future, I do not foresee a problem. However if he continues his incivil conduct then by all means, feel free to repost here. —Dark 12:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I do apologise for my silly comment and thank you for your time in this.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Which comment do you apologize for? This one where you actually insulted an editor inside an article that's now a matter of permanent record? Let's be a little more specific here - had I seen that edit yesterday, you'd still be blocked today - I chose one link at random, and if any of the rest of the links are even close to being as bad, there's a serious problem here. the panda ₯’ 09:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocking him over that particular edit is excessive to say the least. I do not see any attacks beyond that diff - unhelpful allegations of article ownership and accusations that are borderline incivil, sure, but nothing serious enough to justify a block. —Dark 12:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• • So I am guessing this has been resolved now? Darkfalls has done some mediation and it appears to have worked Badanagram (attempt) 18:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is, however, I am asking that the WP:PERSONAL policy be re-written then to describe the kind of attacks that ARE personal, as in the opening paragraph, it states to comment on content, but a contributor. And while I provided eight things above of contributor discussion, it doesn't seem to "count" from what I gather. That's all I am asking. And yes, thank you to DarkFalls for setting up his mediation. I do appreciate it. I mean, am I completely happy with the outcome? No. But am I willing to settle on it? I guess. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Tprg

Above user appears to be repeatedly adding speculative information about Telenova's that have not yet been created as per user talkpage User_talk:Tprg.

Editors have requested that user does not post such material here and here,

Can someone please advise/assist on the matter please as it appears to be an ongoing issue Amortias (T)(C) 22:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the user ignores the messages that are left and insists on creating soap operas article unconfirmed sources is a blog and other highly dubious references, the user takes time and in the same way and is currently unchanged.--GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 06:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The user is still posting information to multiple articles about unscreened and at present unnoteable Telenovas as seen here. Amortias (T)(C) 23:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I see the concerns about this editor. And yet not all of the created articles have been deleted, or at least they haven't stayed deleted. This is a slight derailing, but I guess it's worth bringing up three articles:

• Mi Corazón Es Tuyo was brought to a deletion discussion where consensus was to delete it (two people agreed to delete, no objections). It was recreated (not by Tprg) and as you can see it is still around. The difference that I can see (with my admin superpowers) is that there is now information about when the show is scheduled to premiere, that information was not present prior to the AfD. The deletion was mostly for WP:CRYSTAL, and with a projected air date soon the article could be considered different enough from before that G4 speedy deletion doesn't apply.
• La Gata (2014 telenovela) was also brought to a deletion discussion but it was given a reprieve because it was due to air soon. It looks like the show is now on the air, with at least 20 episodes broadcast.
• La Malquerida (telenovela) was also brought to a deletion discussion, the consensus there was to delete with only one objection (that because it was in production it did not qualify for WP:CRYSTAL). Interestingly enough, it was recreated by GeorgeMilan (the same person in this thread) with the odd comment "Article deleted without any reason" (which is ridiculous, it went to AfD, that is why it was deleted). It is scheduled to premiere today, I wonder if that has or will happen.

So this shows me that not everything that Tprg has created is without merit. I suppose the question is whether or not Tprg's problematic contributions outweigh the good ones that are still around. -- Atama頭 19:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Death threat

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

---

Death threat by User:Altimgamr sock (see edit summary). Semi-protecting my talk page would be appreciated. Bahooka (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the edit, blocked the account, semi-protected the talk page, and emailed emergency@. I'll be checking for socks momentarily. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Bahooka (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Engineer1989 (or is it User:Intelligentguy89?)

Intelligentguy89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry. Three editors: myself, User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Iryna Harpy have raised similar concerns (of undue weight amongst other things) at the inclusion of certain content in Indian general election, 2014. Not content with the way discussions have been going against the inclusion, User:Intelligentguy89 has been behaving in a very aggressive and belligerent fashion. He seems unrepentant.

Note that as he has moved his userpages over another name without creating the account, I don't know how to notify. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You did the right thing by notifying at both places. I've moved the userpage and talk page back to their correct spots. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note - User:Intelligentguy89 have similar editing/edit summery trends with User:Jyoti.mickey so a CU would be worth checking. Edmondhills (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are free to perform any valid checks. I have only one account on all Wikimedia projects, and have no connection with, or knowledge of, User:Jyoti.mickey (or any other account). --EngineeringGuy (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That is why I am endorsing a CU which may reveal something bigger IMO. Edmondhills (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

From here: @Edmondhills: if you want to open an SPI investigation on Jyoti.mickey (t c), you may do so at the main page of WP:SPI, but you must specify what other account you think he's abusing. Just throwing around words like "I want an admin to CU him" is meaningless. —Darkwind (talk) 9:00 am, 14 May 2014, Wednesday (19 days ago) (UTC+5.5). Jyoti (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit where I have mentioned other users' names uses the word "suggest". It does not say that they are "definitely" using the techniques of sockpuppetry. Besides, my suggestion was not unfounded. The three users in question were using similar styles (e.g. bullet points, starting points with phrase "I concur with...", etc.). (The usual practice observed in talk pages is to use the tab or space at the start of the post.) It is definitely possible that they are not sock puppets, but actual, different users. In that case, they can provide their reasons, examples, explanations, etc. to prove or disprove any point. Or they can choose to ignore the matter if they want. On the whole, this was a minor issue that was a mere observation, and not any insult or disrespect to anyone or anything. It seems strange that (till now) two of those three users want to give so much attention to it. (One of them even seemed sure of the other two's reactions... strange...) If they indeed are not sock-puppets, and are so sensitive to minor things like this that it is all considered as insult, harassment or trauma by them, then I apologize. Finally, I was certainly not behaving in a "very aggressive and belligerent fashion". It was an ordinary debate-type discussion. It seems User:Ohconfucius either has misinterpreted, or wants to exaggerate, matters here. By the way, User:Ohconfucius deleted the entire section: Indian general elections, 2014#Criminal and financial details of the election winners (worth 5715 bytes) that was the subject of the talk-page discussion, without any consensus. This may count as vandalism. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Posting accusations (even by inference) of sockpuppetry against three other contributors on an article talk page is WP:TE, per my comments on your user page here and here. Your response was that the burden of proof in on us to demonstrate that we are not sockpuppets hence, by your own convenient reasoning, giving you the right to disregard our policy-based objections.

As regards my response on behalf of the other two editors, I am well aware of Ohconfucius as he has been a Wikipedian for many, many years. Again, as I suggested to you, all you have to do is check suspected sockpuppet's special contributions to establish whether there are any similar editing patterns, differences in dates, etc. One look at Ohconfucius's and my editing times, areas of Wikipedia and length of time we've been editing makes your allegation laughable. My observation regarding Ms Sarah Welch is pure common sense: as she is a relative newcomer, you've demonstrated bad faith and intimidation practices that may well turn her away from wishing to continue to contribute to Wikipedia (i.e., Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet").

As regards your denial of "very aggressive and belligerent fashion", "I concur" with Ohconfucius that his description of your attitude has been precisely as he calls it. One look at the section I created on your talk page in order to steer it away from the article talk page attests to your mindset.

Finally, your failure to follow protocols in changing your username (even though you'd started using Sarthak Sharma as your actual signature, making it highly likely that you'd confuse other editors you've encountered in future talk page comments with a completely different username) suggests either a poor understanding of Wikipedia's practices, or a blatant disregard for good editing practices. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

More precisely: Frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry uncivil at best and are usually considered to be personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that he is ignoring this AN/I and is carrying on involving himself in discussions in the same manner. The fact that this hasn't been pursued further here has merely reinforced the idea that he's welcome to behave in such manner without fear of reproach. I'm not asking that he be blocked, or that any form of extreme punitive measures be brought to bear. What I am suggesting is that he should retract his accusations on the article talk page. I don't have the energy to check on his behaviour elsewhere, but it may be that he needs some form of guidance/mentoring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING attempt

Resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved I have removed an WP:OUTING attempt here - would an admin please attend to this? 121.219.8.176 (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks, but please don't post links to sensitive information on a public noticeboard. Instead, please follow the instructions in the edit notice for this page - namely, please make a request per the instructions here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Note - the linked diff has been suppressed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock possible?

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

---

• 117.18.231.44 (talk · contribs)
• 117.18.231.54 (talk · contribs)
• 117.18.231.40 (talk · contribs)
• 117.18.231.36 (talk · contribs)

See Dougweller's last note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haque. The campaign is continuing this morning to insert the subject into various articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to a rangeblock, which can be fairly narrow, yielding little collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd do it but they make me nervous, prefer someone more tech savvy. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a very small range (117.18.231.32/27), so I've blocked it for two weeks. If the range expands or if the protection needs to be extended, just drop me a note on my talk.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Done.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Virus spreading IP

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

---

110.45.173.160 (talk · contribs) is spamming virus infected external links. The Korean IP is static thus blocking should solve that problem for good.TMCk (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Jayron32.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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

89.205.38.27

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

---

89.205.38.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly makes personal attacks against RockNRollStaaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and uses vulgar language. (Here are two examples; the latter one features an image of male genitalia [45], [46]) He has been warned twice previously for personal attacks (one of which was removed impolitely). He has also been warned previously for genre vandalism and disruptive editing. Administrative help to cope with this problem would be appreciated. –Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Saket.earth, copyright violations, and WP:CIR

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

---

Saket.earth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Repeatedly adding a copyrighted image to an article [47], [48], [49]
• Introducing copyrighted text my removal after a number of warnings
• Removing CSD tag [50]
• Creating articles like this

Talk page littered with notices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright infringements and promotion. De728631 (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Given the number of versions of the same thing that have been deleted, should Draft:How a Good Person Can Really Win be zappped too? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Good find, thank you Boing. Yes, that was another copyvio taken from GoodReads and I've now shredded the page. De728631 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN and Personal attacks from User:Ansegam

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

---

I am having problems with user:Ansegam (talk) who is displaying serious WP:OWN on Historical inheritance systems. When I came first across the page, my intention was to try to fix the overlinking but after attempting to read through some of it and having read other peoples concerns on the talk page I decided that the best thing to do was to remove some of the excessive detail. I fully explained what I was doing on the talk page and no one has objected there. After my initial removal of the large list of names, most of what I did was basic copy editing for grammar, as well as filling/tidying some references. Ansegam has since reverted every edit made to the page since before my first edit [51] with no edit summary and no comment on the talk page. I feel that my edits are an improvement to the page and a step towards addressing some of the major problems that have been highlighted by other editors. I reverted Ansegams edit and left a note on their talk page [52]. Ansegams has now reverted again to the original version [53] and responded to my note on their talk page by calling my [54] "Mentally challenged" and saying "people like [me] destroy the world by making everything "user-friendly", thus destroying culture and wisdom and turning all people into fools who can hardy think and learn". They have also claimed my edits where vandalism and stated that they will superimpose their version if I try to make any more edits.

I would really like to see the article improved, no matter who is the one to do it. I understand thet Ansegram has put a lot of time into it but that kind of excessive detail does not belong here and their behaviour is unacceptable. I see no point in attempting to continue a dialogue with them if they are just going to attack me and threaten to block all attempts I make to improve the page. I would like an administrator to have a look at the situation and take any action they think if necessary. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a serious problem, and I commented at the user's talk. There are three related articles with excessive details: Historical inheritance systems and Systems of inheritance among various peoples and Systems of social stratification. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Much of it reads more like a research thesis than an encyclopaedic entry. Needs serious cleanup. NQ (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Found this - some context NQ (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that AfD sheds light, NQ. The attitude is a greater problem than the edit warring, certainly, but they are edit warring, so, somewhat for form's sake, I've also warned them about that. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

I just blocked Ansegam for disruptive editing after yet another revert. He was warned three times in the past 24 hours. Last warning was by NQ just over two hours ago after which Ansegam reverted another edit. He has been blocked for one week. Bgwhite (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

botUser? : Staafros1

Account is being used only for promotional purposes. The user is consistently creating numerous articles like Boys_Union_Club (I have seen 10 articles) about small football clubs for promotional purpose without any citation. Large number of articles are created in such a less time, I even have a doubt that the user is a bot. Also user seems to be ignore all the warnings given in talk page. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 10:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Staafros1 (talk · contribs)

The contributions show 30 articles created in 17 hours—that's not evidence of a bot or a problem. Articles such as Boys Union Club and Western University FC are very short, but they have potential (assuming their text is correct), and there is no reason to think they are promotional. It's good to get world-wide coverage, with the only proviso being that the clubs are significant in their countries, although proving WP:N is satisfied might be a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

But the most of the articles don't have single source to validate their claim. It is just like creating numerous articles for a number of sports club which have no notability. I will be pleased if the user can cite a single source. Also user won't respond to any request.- abhilashkrishn ^talk 11:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoting WP:V: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. With the exception of BLPs, while it is bad form to create an unreferenced article, by no means is it prohibited either. If there's no sources to validate the articles claims, looking for them is a good first step. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq is right, there really isn't evidence of illicit automated editing. Rapta FC, Rain Bow FC, and Munuki FC, for instance, only vary insomuch as the titles are different. If you knew of several clubs that played at the same stadium, you might just create stubs for each... and it mightn't even take a minute between each edit. That doesn't make the stubs any less poor-quality, but it's not evidence of use of a bot. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

IP user adding non-free content to article, and reverting when I remove them

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

---

Hello. I recently noticed that one of the non-free logos which I uploaded on wikipedia is being used on an article for which I did not submit a rationale, on the Voronezh International Airport article. The IP user (User:109.106.138.194) has reverted three times (no. 1, no. 2, no. 3). I left a note on the IP user's talk page about this before he reverted for a third time (here) but he not only ignored it, but also reverted again. All of the logos the unregistered user is using on that page are non-free logos, and they should be removed immediately as per Wikipedia rules but this is made impossible when the IP user simply reverts the page back. I would like to request that the IP be blocked for this reason. --Philly boy92 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

More eyes needed at Misandry

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

---

The article Misandry could use a few more people to discuss recent content changes. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the WP:SPA who focused on righting the great wrong of our handling of Warren Farrell? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any one editor, or I would have named them. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the article due to the ongoing dispute. I encourage everyone to continue the discussion on the talk page. Mike V • Talk 21:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Offensive comments at Manosphere

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

---

User: FokkerTISM just added some offensive invisocomments to the Manosphere article, which make veiled personal attacks against other editors. In addition, the comments are strongly anti-Semitic. The same editor has previously made similarly offensive comments on articles in the past, so this isn't a new pattern. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

They also made the following vandalistic edit on Genocidal rape: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&diff=prev&oldid=590788425 --31.205.21.96 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the hidden comments rather deplorable and a stark juxtaposition to a central tenet of the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"? Yes. Are they worthy of a block? Not in my opinion, at this time. However, I would remind the editor in question to assume good faith in future interactions, and to avoid making such hidden comments in the future. Go Phightins! 02:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Looking through the contributions of the editor, and the rant in both hidden comments and edit summaries about Feminists, Zionists, ADL, etc, there is very much more here than a simple 'reminder'. Come on now. Dave Dial (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Add this:What a fucking racist Chris Rock is

Someone probably needs to go through this editors edits. With edits that are vandalism sandwiched in between valid edits, there are sure to be more. Dave Dial (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the hidden comments read: "Feminists and Zionists, please do NOT edit this page." And the edit summary reads: "adding links to some manosphere and related sites + invisocomments for jews and feminists." That is outrageous. I would indef. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I too found the one in article space. I have blocked -- Diannaa (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, my comments were based off a cursory review of the editor's last few edits, a few of which were constructive in article space. Upon digging deeper, yes, there is more blockable stuff in there than I originally saw. Go Phightins! 02:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User effecting major category changes for biographies

Not sure how things work these days (I'm a 7-year admin but have effectively been on wikibreak for 2) but Hoops gza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing all non-hidden categories from a whole tonne of biographical categories such as Category:Barack Obama, Category:Winston Churchill and Category:C. S. Lewis to name but a few. He has been challenged about this on his talk page but has kept going. This appears to go against the entire spirit of Wikipedia:CATEGORY#Category_tree_organization, which views categories as a tree of related hierarchical entries rather than a series of amorphous, unconnected ones. Can someone with more recent understanding of goings-on in that field have a look and see if action is required to fix the problem? Orderinchaos 03:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the person who "challenged" me on it came to understand the logic. You'd see that if you had actually read my talk page. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the user who had added these categories to categories named after people (apparently only in the field of British writers) was User:Dimadick, so I am more or less reverting his changes. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic of removing categories from categories - that end up only having hidden categories. That flies in the face of over 5 years working with categories on wikipedia. Interestingly user dimadick has not been in the current conversation or invited or notified. There is no sign of a conversation seeking others opinions, and when I challenged the issue the links in my opinion show no sign of conversation amongst other editors.

The stance of removing the category from T.E. Lawrence category (where I first noticed this issue) - leaving it with no connection to the main part of wikipedia's categpry structure seems from my perspective be a mis-reading of what categories are about. satusuro 03:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoops gza claims that Satusoru "came to understand the logic", but here he clearly indicates that he doesn't agree with that logic. The idea is probably some very strict interpretation of categories, where David Irving is a "20th-century historian", but Category:David Irving is not a "20th-century historian"[55], because a category can never be a historian, or because that category contains things which are not a historian (I've seen either argument used in such discussions). This treats categories are very strict trees, and not the "clouds" most people use them for, collections of related articles. I've reverted his changes per WP:BRD. Fram (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That still does not resolve Hoops attitude to interpretation, and the incapacity of the category policies to deal with such an interpretation. Surely removing any categories for any reason - so that a category is no longer in a category that is visible and part of the larger tree - is wrong? I fail to see how a category item can exist that do not connect with anything that is part of the larger tree. Also before responding to this note orderinchaos's comment at hoops talk page - what you're doing actually flies in the face of a category system (a category system is a tree rather than a bunch of isolated units - and a hidden category is a meta-structure, not a structure) gives a clue to solve the issue - there should be something in category policy and procedures where such a narrow interpretation is not possible - on the basis that by isolating the categories as was done is seen as a fundamental error of interpretation. Frams comment about the categories in question as 'clouds' rather than strict interpretation by hoops - suggests a way forward and needs to be discussed somewhere where category policy and procedure needs to verify the issue arrived at by consensus, and with proper deliberation. satusuro 09:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Fram has said here, I think that Hoops gza's interpretation is certainly a novel one that runs counter to long-established practice, and one that I think finds little support in the relevant guideline. To add to that, I'd like to expand that this sort of mass change is the sort of thing that requires consensus, and the right thing to do if someone raises a concern is to stop and discuss before proceeding further. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

You cannot have non-hidden categories as parent categories of categories named after people. The Yalta Conference is not a 20th-century British writer (Winston Churchill), and Helen M. Roberts is not a President of the United States (Barack Obama). You guys apparently do not understand why we have the hidden categories in the first place. - Hoops gza (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry your argument doesnt make sense Winston Churchill should be in both categories British writer and Yalta Conference as well as other WWI & WWII related ones, UK political, Boar War, etc. As there are multiple article relating to WC there should be a WC category for them which should then be in bio tree of categories, not as you have been doing in removing all categories and saying hidden cats are all thats necessary, when the hidden cats arent part of the article structure they are solely for WP maintance tasks. Gnangarra 15:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, that's not what he means. One of the categories on the article Yalta Conference is "Winston Churchill". By adding the cat "Winston Churchill" to the cat "Nobel Prize winners" (or whatever cat), you bring indirectly the article Yalta Conference into the "Nobel Prize winners" category tree, which is incorrect if you believe that category trees should be strictly linear, i.e. every article should be a direct member of not only the parent cats but also the grandparent cats and so on. In reality, this strict system isn't followed anywhere and the cat tree is more a cloud of related articles, which means that e.g. Canada's Worst Driver (season 1) is a greatgrandchild of Category:Academic disciplines, even though it isn't an academic discipline strictly speaking... Fram (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoops, you need to stop this as it's a rather dramatic change. I suggest ceasing all such removals of eponymous categories, and bringing the discussion to WP:COP to discuss how and in what way eponymous categories for individuals should be categorized. There aren't obvious answers and there are good arguments on both sides, and to be fair it is currently inconsistent, but nonetheless the removals should stop and a clear consensus arrived at before additional damage is done.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoops is a good guy who means well, but there are some fundamental misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy at work here. Hoops has been the subject of several older ANI threads (1, 2), and all of them concluded that this is a case of WP:COMPETENT and not an editor trying to harm the project. As was suggested then, and may be suggested again, perhaps a mandatory mentor or oversight admin is needed here. Hoops has had some major problems with copyrights on images, OR in articles, and (as seen here) radical articles moves and category creations. I think he needs help not sanction and support not censure. -OberRanks (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we really need to knock this on the head. The contents of Category:Wikipedia categories named after American politicians are for mainspace, encyclopaedic usage. Hidden categories are for administration or non-mainspace purposes – none of these categories have this aim. The obvious solution is to have the eponymous biographical categories sit in relevant mainspace categories (like we have at Category:Presidents of the United States). The whole "Wikipedia categories named after..." structure has no viable basis as sole parents of these categories because of the combination that (a) eponymous categories are actually main content categories, and (b) "Wikipedia category" is not a defining characteristic of real topics. That was part of the reason for my original suggestion that these be flagged as "Wikipedia categories" so we can treat them for what they actually are – not a part of the mainspace category structure. SFB 18:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Fram's remark (Churchill & Yalta, above) explains User:Hoops gza's thinking, and I find it, while contrary to practice, quite logical. It is also supported by WP:SUBCAT; e.g., following the principles there, the categories re-added to Category:Friedrich Hayek in this edit ought to be removed from Friedrich Hayek – which is absurd, thus justifying their removal from the eponymous category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I read those principles quite differently, they seem to say that it is perfectly allright that an article and its eponymous cat share some of their categories: "Eponymous categories typically take on a selection of the categories which are present in their corresponding articles.". It also says "[...]by convention, many categories do contain their articles' eponymous categories as subcategories, even though they are not "true" subcategories." So it seems that the removals by Hoops gza go against established, accepted convention and apply a very strict reading of the cat rules instead. Fram (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the root of this discussion is that the guideline on how to categorise an article with an eponymous category is lacking. It's partially the same problem I raised two years ago. Only one reason is given for how one would choose (or not choose) to categorise an article with an eponymous category ("to prevent a loop") and that statement isn't obviously supported by the current arrangement on British Islands. Guidelines should make their purpose clear, not simply advise without context. The benefits of excluding an article from parents of its eponymous category are not always obvious. For example, what is the benefit to the reader of excluding the nation articles from Category:Archaeology by country? Is depriving the reader of viewing all the top level national archaeology pages at a single venue an intentional result? The underlying reasons for this guideline should be discussed further at the Categorisation talk page. SFB 17:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruption-only account

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

---

I'm wondering if Wholegood (talk · contribs) shouldn't be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, for instance. They started off with a serious of pretty stupid POV edits such as this one (adding the "Anti-Catholicism" category to an article on a British law) and a couple of these ones, adding the Misogyny category to a couple of legal articles. Here is another disruptive category edit, and here they are adding a ridiculous source to an obesity-related article which...well, you'll have to read it for yourself. It's pretty vile. They've been warned for a couple of things already. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing Strip search phone call scam as humor is pretty messed up. Even if sometimes things intended as humor wind up "bombing" on the stage, it's pretty clear that scam wasn't intended as humor in the normal sense (I'd honestly question whether you could even call it lulzy). I get there's some subcategorization that technically places that article within the scope of a couple comedy cats, but I suggest that's more an error of categorization than an indication that those incidents should be categorized as comedy, humor, or practical jokes. Whether that particular instance should be considered NOTHERE-type behavior, I'm not sure. In light of the other edits Drmies questions here (particularly the obesity article), I'm thinking this might just be trolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd noticed the same behaviour. I agree with Mendaliv that this looks awfully ducklike. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just indefblocked - he's stirring and making some pretty poor-taste edits that could be really offensive and upsetting to some readers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Succession to the Crown Act 2013, that particular Act of law actually did repeal previous law which was anti-Catholic, see Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013#Marriage_to_Roman_Catholics. It's not unreasonable to categorise it as something relating to anti-Catholicism. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, a couple of edits might have been ok but what else I saw wasn't. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Anyone got a spare minute?

Can someone address this please. I probably provoked him a little by posting a tinfoil hat picture when he started talking about microwave mind-controlling energy weapons but now he's calling people Nazis. I have no doubt he's the same person who created the article, now blocked for sock-puppetry. I couldn't really care less about the silly insult but he's clearly WP:NOTHERE and quack-socking with an IP to avoid his block. A brave admin could just close the AFD as WP:SNOW and remove the problem all together. Stalwart111 07:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd just leave the AfD to run its course - I've removed all the nonsense added to the article by the IP. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

. Thanks. Stalwart111 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Though the "good little Nazi" comment is still a bit much in a civil AFD discussion. Stalwart111 10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone is contemplating admin action, the IP seems to be pretty dynamic even though it's v6 - back with more conspiracy-theory ranting at the AfD today from a different address in a fairly wide range (I don't think any action actually is needed right now, but just a heads-up). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: User:Beyond My Ken - request for prompt intervention

User:Beyond My Ken needs an intervention (and time out). Pronto! Would an appropriate third party please attend to this promptly?

BMK is engaging in disruptive behavior (having progressed from inappropriately reverting my edits pointing out unreferenced content in the Bryant Park article to instigating edit war-like behavior), and is behaving uncivilly, including the use of direct rudness (including multiple descriptions under 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d, e.g., extreme profanity and personal attacks.) I cannot assume good faith, given the escalating and persistent nature of BMK's behavior, and in light of the fact that BMK's user talk page reflects a history of similar interactions with other Wikipedians in response to their complaints about the propriety of BMK's edits or reversions of their edits.

To demonstrate what I'm referring to and for your convenience, I've included below:

• a copy of BMK's and my interactions from the relevant section of my user talk page (content pasted below)
• a link to Bryant Park: Revision history (May 31 - June 2, 2014), which documents the BMK's and my history of edits
• a link to User talk:Beyond My Ken, which reflects a history of contentious interactions with Wikipedians, including uncivil remarks and complaints about BMK's editing practices

Here is the relevant thread of interactions from User talk:Froid#Don't tag..., opened by BMK:

Copied and pasted thread from Froid's user talk page

Don't tag... ...fix it. Drive-by tagging simply leaves the work for other people to do, it's much more collegial (and efficient) if you actually fix the problem instead. BMK (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC) There's no prohibition against noting cn's and unreferenced articles, pages, and sections. Moreover, both noting the need for references and contributing said references contribute to improving Wikipedia. Sometimes I do fix the problem (which cleans up work the original contributor left undone); at other times while reading an article that I see needs citations or better references, I indicate that need, but I may be focused on another agenda or have limited time to chase down references, in which cases it would be INEFFICIENT for me to switch gears to go on a reference hunt. In still other instances, I might be reading Wikipedia on a device (such as my phone or ereader) that permits me to note the need for references but is ill-equipped to search for and/or type them in. Whatever the case - whether I hunt down and fix a reference or not - it would be irresponsible to notice the need for references yet not indicate that finding. Froid (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Also, I see you have reverted my notes indicating the need for references. You appear to be unfamiliar with the rules for using references - one cannot merely state facts without providing supporting evidence. If you dislike providing such evidence, don't just remove the tags; let someone else provide such support. And please read one or more of the following guides for citing references, found at such links as these: Wikipedia:Citation_needed Template:Unreferenced_section https://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+cite+references&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb I'm going to replace my good faith and well-founded edits. Let's not get into an edit war; if you dislike my notations, then please call in a mediator. Froid (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I've requested input from a third party to help resolve this: see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bryant_Park. Froid (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Yeah, 9 years here and 145K+ edits means that I'm "unfamiliar" with referencing. Stop being so fucking lazy and fix a problem when you see it. And stop tagging "the sky is blue" facts. BMK (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I've expanded my request for intervention (regarding your reactions to my tags pointing out unreferenced and underreferenced content) to now also include attention to your disruptive and uncivil (category 1a 1b, 1c, and 1d) behavior. As per Wikipedia guidelines, I'll tag your user talk page accordingly. Froid (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I see no need for admin action here. BMK said "fucking", and he complained about Froid tagging a page rather than being bold and fixing things himself. BMK is obviously frustrated... but sanctions aren't going to address the underlying issue, nor is escalating things to the dramaboard as soon as one party in a dispute gets a little angry. Step back, take a sip of water, and maybe a nap, then come back to this and see if this is really something that requires immediate administrator attention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• BMK needs to be more civil in his interactions (telling someone to stop being "fucking lazy" is unacceptable) but the case is not severe enough to merit admin attention.I agree with Mendaliv, people need to calm down and talk it out rather than posting on ANI. Also in the future, please refrain from posting the entire discussion - a link will suffice. —Dark 08:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I collapsed the copied/pasted thread to keep from confusing people; when I first saw this thread I thought there had already been some responses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have never run across a editor that is so crass, rude, offensive and demining since I started editing here, then Beyond My Ken. I feel he has lost touch with the fact that this is a public site and his interactions become a part of the history of each article, potentially diminishing the value of it, should a detailed review be conducted of the history. He has used profanity upon me in the past, and from what I see seems to have the need to belittle other users in a manner that most of the time results in that user never returning. I have seen it more then once here and have tried to redirect those user into a educational tool (The Wikipedia Adventure) to learn, yet it seems to me that BMK's prior bashing and verbal abuse and in short order simply drives them away, this is already a continued pattern of unsavory interactions with the community, and if left unchecked will without question result in the continued pattern of driving away new editors that often simply do not understand the policies yet if provided some insight and guidance could become productive members of Wikipedia. While some of his edits might have value and conform to policy, is it worth it if some poor editors first encounter is with this user, he will continue to drive away new users if not dealt with. talk→ WPPilot  09:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Diffs or it didn't happen. Please point to some users he has driven away. Since you claim he does this on a regular basis it should be easy to compile a list.--Atlan (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Even from the viewpoint of a user who has frequently been in conflict with Beyond My Ken, I don't think it will be easy to compile such a list. He may come across as rough at times (and sometimes get into edit wars due to wiki markup). However, there's really no point in complaints over minor things (like this thread), where the only admin action needed is to tell BMK that cursing is a no-no. Epicgenius (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      • "wppilot" is a bit of a crank, I wouldn't take that claim seriously. Had a bit of a run-in over his direct lifting of text without attribution from a source (detailed here last month, and the defense didn't match the reality at all. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I didn't take the claim seriously. In fact I find it ridiculous and there's no way he can back it up. But that's the point. He shouldn't make baseless accusations. Those are worse than BMK's rudeness.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A specious complaint, with no action required imho, except a warning boomerang. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User Tarc's comments are incorrect, and that user is a loon, IMHO. He referred to a edit that I made that was not rephrased enough for him. [[56]] is an example and I have noticed others, BMK enjoys getting under peoples skin, over time, even calling me a asshole in the past. I have suggested to BMK that he tone down his belligerent rhetoric and offer assistance to the new users [57] but his weasel worded edit summary's and the whack a mole mentality seems to continue. @Atlan simply review the history of BMK's edits its public. It is funny that Tarc has isolated 1 edit (out of the tens of thousands I have made) that he feels makes my contributions worthless, - what a joke, from a college student none the less, kids are funny! BMK is disruptive, like it or not. talk→ WPPilot  15:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to do the work for you and review BMK's edits. If you make an accusation, you have to back it up with evidence. Otherwise withdraw the accusation. Baseless accusations are disruptive, like it or not.--Atlan (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are three from the last 2 weeks alone

• User talk:Hudson11377
• User talk:78.35.244.159
• User talk:84.44.195.210

talk→ WPPilot  16:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well upon reviewing the matter at Hudson11377's talk page, I find that editor being warned by BMK about edit-warring at Grand Central Terminal. Apparently Hudson wanted to change the infobox image but several other editors reverted that change, requesting that a discussion be opened at the talk page to gain consensus. I see nothing untowards regarding BMK's posts to Hudson's talk page, and in fact see another editor warning Hudson about making baseless claims of harassment. Do we need to investigate your next 2 links to the IP editors' talk pages, or are we going to find more of the same? Which is to say, are we going to find nothing of substance to support your allegation? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure what evidence you think you are presenting. BMK has made no posts on the talk pages of the two IP's. On H's talk page this section User talk:Hudson11377#You really don.27t seem to understand... contains reasoned responses to someone about image use. Then this section User talk:Hudson11377#This is your only warning has not one but two other editors backing up BMK's request. As there is no action for an admin to take based on these you might want to ignore BMK and go and edit some articles. MarnetteD | Talk 16:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BMK's efforts are more coy & are often done in the edit summary. My point is simple Meta:Don't be unpleasant, sums it up really well. @MarnetteD, great idea, ciao! talk→ WPPilot  16:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@WPPilot: So you have an editing dispute with BMK. Big deal, I disagree with his edits too sometimes, but I don't whine about it to the admin's noticeboard, because it's not worth pursuing. Point is, almost every editor replying on this thread is telling you to stop your accusations, unless you have substantiative evidence of his behavior. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WPPilot has a history of making unfounded accusations, assuming bad faith about other editors, unnecessarily escalating conflicts, and taking simple criticisms as personal insults. During the last discussion I had with him, in April of this year, I made it necessary to point out this history to him. Which led him to withdraw from the discussion, claiming that it was "sailing season". You can see it here in the COI noticeboard archives.

It's ironic that WPPilot claims that BMK has driven editors away from Wikipedia, because WPPilot drove Hijiri88 from Wikipedia after a conflict that WPPilot again escalated unnecessarily. In another incident WPPilot also threatened legal action against BMK, and accused BMK and another editor of being sockpuppets only because they both disagreed with him. (Again this is all explained at the COI noticeboard archive.) I've warned WPPilot that his behavior is unacceptable, he has a pattern of disruptive editing and when called out on it will usually put on a pacific face and withdraw prior to action being taken against him (which I suspect is how he has avoided a block for 4+ years).

I've tried to guide him, tried to stick up for him (somewhat) because he has made some positive contributions to the project over the years, but frankly I'm tired of his unending pattern. He has shown up at noticeboards multiple times, usually in a thread started by him, to vilify whoever he is in a content dispute with at the time. He has never changed and I doubt he will. I've pretty much given up on him at this point. -- Atama頭 19:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a thread about another editor, not about me. I am sorry I gave my opinion, but I am entitled to one. My point was to assert that civility should be a given, not a gift and that perhaps a new editor would be better served if that editor was dealt with in a manner that is more constructive. As this has turned into another attack upon me, I withdraw my opinion and observations, as posted but do still feel strongly that civility/or acceptance of the lack of it, is not in the spirit of this site.

Wikipedia can be confusing to a new user and IMHO if people were more helpful, as opposed to the rapid manner that some users seem to target, that it might be better. @Atama, your wrong, and perhaps should have just let it go, but the fact is I contribute things of value here. I have received many barnstars as well as been recognized as a contributor of a number of featured pictures. My comments were designed to do nothing other then to allow others the chance, to do the same. I am sorry that you feel I need to change. talk→ WPPilot  20:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's called WP:BOOMERANG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

...And as predicted, when called out on his own actions, WPPilot withdraws with calls for peace and tranquility. This happens every time. -- Atama頭 20:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, WPPilot also mentions non-sequiturs when confronted—detracting from the conversation at hand—saying that he made many good contributions, for example. Epicgenius (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I agree that civility should be a given rather than gift, it shouldn't be subject to a suicide pact; lapses should not be grounds for throwing the book at an editor in otherwise good standing. More importantly—and this goes to general issues with ANI—we should not let civility breaches serve (whether intentionally or incidentally) as leverage to forcibly resolve a content dispute in a particular way. For better or worse, Wikipedia is not a court of law; we need to take great care in acting on procedural grounds when the outcome would have substantive effects if we want to maintain such a stance. In short, I believe the best option if there is a serious enough pattern of incivility, is for an uninvolved third party to kick off a RfC/U. Where there's an ongoing underlying content dispute, I don't think ANI should take action in any but the most obvious situations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Useful advice. WPPilot, here's a helpful comment for you. You won't get anywhere on any discussion board without providing diffs and links for the conduct you complain of. The links in your original post are useless; you don't need to link the admins to our best-known policies, you need to link them to examples of what you're talking about. Also, don't link to an entire user talkpage. See the help page Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to proceed. It tells you step by step, it's not hard, and then you won't have to paste in whole chunks of text (which nobody wants to see); just link to it. (P.S. I also agree there's no admin action needed here.) Bishonen | talk 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

More eyes needed at Hungarian Turanism

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

There is currently a slow-ish but persistent (1 per day) revert war going on there with increasingly nasty edit summaries. The article appears to have a longish history of sporadic outbreaks of edit-warring, sockpuppetry, etc. starting in 2010. I have no idea who's "right" or "wrong", and know nothing about the subject. I ended up there when I was alerted to the excessive quotation of copyright material in Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 [58] and found similar problems with the same material at the Hungarian Turanism article [59]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Notified the two participants. In any case, either sanctions or temporary page protection should lie for their edit warring... I'm counting between 9 and 12 reverts for each one since the end of April. I have no clue what the Hungarian edit summaries say, but Google translate at least suggests they're being used for mudslinging or soapboxing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming there is no sockpuppetry involved, there have been four participants in the revert war since late April. I have also notified the other two, one of whom has been very active there in the last week. Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I imagine this article is also subject to the discretionary sanctions put in place following Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Voceditenore (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the ANI notices seem to have gotten them to slow their roll. If ARBEE applies, then AC/DS requires that the parties be put on notice of the discretionary sanctions before they can be applied. Even without that, I think there's clear evidence of a slow edit war, and that some sanction should lie if they keep it up. As to whether there's socking... Diverser and Diversitirif are pretty similar usernames. Those two accounts along with Dosemark don't seem to have edited outside Hungarian Turanism, and specifically outside edit warring with Maghasito. The three all have distinct editing periods though: the Diversitirif edits from 26 Apr. to 1 May, Diverser from 1 May to 3 May, and Dosemark from 6 May to the present. I'm not thrilled with either party's comments at Talk:Hungarian Turanism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Little help

Hi people, I would like your help in this rather confusing issue. Telangana is a new state of India which came into existence today seceding from Andhra Pradesh. Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh is a city actually located in Telangana. Now that the state is divided, the article must be renamed to Nizamabad, Telangana..But a patriot happily copy pasted all the content from Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh and made a new article at Nizamabad,Telangana which doesn't have the previous edit history. Since we always follow this naming convention of having a space after the comma, I hereby request you to

• Delete Nizamabad, Telangana
• Move Nizamabad,Telangana to Nizamabad, Telangana...

That's it folks...thanks in advance ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 11:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Support, I have requested move at admin page, but don;t know who copied it.--Vin09 (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just made a WP:RM request, filed as technically uncontroversial. Epicgenius (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Presumably there are some other articles about nearby places where similar changes need to be made?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

User TheRedPenOfDoom is consistently and unnecessarily removing important edits on the page of Shanker Singham without valid reason. The user TheRedPenOfDoom continues to revert the page back to its most basic form full of errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkowitz1 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean he keeps on removing the blatant advertising that you keep adding to the page? Yeah, he's supposed to do that. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, and your efforts to make Mr Singham look like a minor deity are undermining that aim. Stop it. I also note that this is the second single-purpose account to focus on Shanker Singham (the first being User:Danijela Sremac) - that's at least mildy suspicious in itself. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also notified TRPoD, since the OP didn't bother to read the instructions. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Apologies, didn't see that it had in fact been done. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the advertising, the user uploaded a copyrighted photo even after being advised that it's a copyright violation. Woodroar (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is blatant advertising indeed and Amarkowitz1 should be blocked, for 24 hours, for edit warring.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Raashid Alvi

Three new SPAs and two slightly older accounts have been making highly promotional edits, and assuming ownership of the Raashid Alvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page. Despite attempts to point out policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:COI, Wikipedia:Image use policy (specifically WP:Gallery), WP:LINKFARM and WP:INDICSCRIPT they are determined to have the article exactly their way, and totally unwilling to discuss any aspect.

Raashid Alvi's facebook page [60] which states "This Page is Managed by the Die Hard Fans of Raashid Alvi Saheb" also states:- Website - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raashid_Alvi
I suspect it is the same "Die Hard Fans" who are trying to control the Wikipedia page that they are directing their facebook readers to

Several of the SPAs are rather suspicious, in both their timing, often editing only minutes apart, taking it in turns to revert, and their detailed knowledge of Wikipedia:-

Iffatalvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted an image licensing tag with their second edit, and awarded a barnstar with their 16th edit

Nazhatafroz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted an image licensing tag with their fourth edit

Abrahamkhan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted a connected contributor template with their third edit, deleted an image licensing tag with their fourth edit and made a request for page protection with their fifth edit

Of the more experienced editors Hamdirfan987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started his editing career with a very similar dispute, over edits contrary to policy, at Khalid Alvi and has since uploaded over 100 images of Raashid Alvi – so appears to have a very close connection. Despite only making 318 edits in the last 12 months, he has also awarded himself a Master Editor service award (42,000 edits in 6 years)

Shakeeluddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a wider editing history, but has proved determined to maintain the link-farm.

In an attempt to resolve this, User:KDS4444 opened Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Raashid Alvi this morning, but User:TransporterMan has advised that – “conflict of interest, sockpuppetry, perhaps repeated violation of policy - are conduct matters which will not be addressed by the Mediation Committee and, if action is desired upon them, ought to be referred to the proper conduct forum.” –

If this is not the right place to bring this up, could you please direct me to “the proper conduct forum” – Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest can be addressed at WP:COIN. But I think far more serious is the sockpuppetry allegation. If you can paint a picture using diffs then start a case at WP:SPI and an investigation can take place. -- Atama頭 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

An SPI was raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamdirfan987 and I have protected the page. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a file on the article that has some questionable licensing claims. It was flagged but several of the users above have removed them. The file is a segment from a TV show and the original uploaded says this is allowed. Would someone familiar with copyright / permissions in India take a gander? To be honest, I doubt it adds much to the article and the file can probably be removed the article and deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: SPI results posted.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked all identified editors indefinitely. The CU-confirmed sockpuppets were blocked without much need for consideration, but the master (Hamdirfan987) took a bit more thought. Given the editor's clean block log, I wanted to see what they had done before deciding on a block duration. What I saw was a coordinated effort of deception using these sockpuppets, in an attempt to create the impression of support for Khalid Alvi (in what is alleged above to be a conflict of interest). There are also copyright violation allegations, and what just really rubbed me the wrong way was his awarding of barnstars to himself from his socks. That just showed me that this editor's intentions went far beyond an ignorance of policy. -- Atama頭 22:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Torana, image in signature

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

---

Torana (talk · contribs) has an image in their signature. I have tried to persuade them to change it, referring to the relevant policy, but have had little success. There's no obvious other noticeboard for this so here it is.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User has changed it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Image edit war at Nichiren Shōshū

Over the past few days, there has been a bit of an edit war regarding the inclusion of the Gohonzon image on this page. I would definitely appreciate an administrator to review the recent history, decide on the appropriateness or lack of appropriateness of the inclusion of the image, and, if necessary, place the page under some protection if they see fit to do so, with perhaps an explanation on the article talk page. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

---

In a span of a few minutes 200.120.158.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has managed to call me a prick, a twat, and a piece of shit. I had previously warned him not to be uncivil in his edit summaries, a tosser. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's no good. Calidum, I'd suggest you use edit summaries when reverting. It's not like you were reverting vandalism when, for instance, you restored an unsourced (though probably true) assertion about what an article subject is best known for. Anyway, given this editor has received an only warning for NPA in the last 24 hours and persisted in making personal attacks (as well as edit warring warnings, which seem to have been disregarded), a short block is probably appropriate to prevent further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Block away. I could not care less. Personally I consider that stalking someone's edits, reverting repeatedly without giving a reason, and going out of one's way to be obnoxious and provocative is a much more damaging thing than responding angrily to such behaviour. If the insulting behaviour of reverting without having the courtesy to explain why resulted in editors getting blocked, this place would improve rather dramatically. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, KOH. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

IP block not in accord with Wikipedia guidelines

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

---

IP address 76.171.127.128 blocked by Bearian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after a talk page warning was deleted (re. an edit made to another page). Per Wikipedia guidelines, The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. Block should be removed. Meteoritekid (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Two things:

1. This does indeed seem like an unnecessary block, so some explanation by Bearian is welcome to understand this (error? socking? something else?)

2. May I ask what your interest is in an IP block made ten days ago? And why you posted the notification at User talk:Bearian/RfaPoll, a page which didn't exist and which had no incoming links? Fram (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Semi-private computer/IP, sockpuppetry is impossible. This may not mean much coming from a complainant, but it is true.

2. Bearian enacted a ~30 day block on the IP, in effect until the ~23rd of June. If unwarranted blocks are being made by an administrator, s/he should be informed of the issue. I apologize; I tried to link to the userpage, but apparently used the wrong {{ prefix. I am not well-versed in these kinds of details; I think it is now fixed. Meteoritekid (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The block doesn't make sense, 11 days after the IP's last edit. I think maybe Bearian meant to block a different IP but made a mistake. Like you say, Bearian should be informed of the issue, but instead you chose to bypass him and run to ANI. Why didn't you just ask about it on his talk page? Why did you create User talk:Bearian/RfaPoll? Why did you remove the block notice from the IP's page? Your actions make very little sense.--Atlan (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not a regular on Wikipedia and am not familiar with most policies beyond looking into this issue. I have never been to this page before. I googled how to deal with unwarranted blocks and was led here. It seemed more likely to be productive than hitting up the person who enacted the block itself, assuming that they knew what they were doing. I deleted the block notice in the hope of removing the block. That apparently doesn't work. If you think this would be best dealt with by contacting the user, I'll go ahead and try that. Meteoritekid (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I created a page User talk:Bearian/RfaPoll if it exists; I thought I mistakenly linked to it here instead of his user profile. Genuinely confused if I am the reason for that page's existence, unless it has to do with the statement at the top of this page: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so." (?) Meteoritekid (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Regular or not, if you found the words that say you have to notify them about the ANI filing, then you cannot miss the words "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't want to 'file a grievance against someone' so much as get the IP unblocked. Per google, this seemed the place to come. Looking over the other entries here, the post does not seem out of place, but I have noted your comments and will not come here again if it can be avoided. Meteoritekid (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the {{unblock}} template you added to the IP's talk page, as that is for use by the blocked editor - the correct way for a third party to enquire, as you have now done, is to first ask the blocking admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Samsamcat

The user repeatedly re-adds non-free media to their user page. Werieth (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did running here replace asking the editor on their talk page? Resolute 13:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the users history of abusive behavior, I dont want to deal with the BS. I know the user will ignore anything that I post. Im just cutting to the chase. Werieth (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably because that user has a very poor attitude to anyone doing that, i.e. [61]. I'll issue a warning (though it'll no doubt be removed with some abuse) and then they have no excuse to do it again. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I know his history, but even so. I've just explained to him the reasoning, we'll see if he accepts it. Resolute 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I was just working out how best to easily explain the difference between "permission" and "free license" :) Thanks. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

NP. Hopefully this will resolve this concern. Resolute 13:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• user blanks warning, vandalizes my user page, re-adds media, and then tells me to Go fuck yourself. while vandalizing my user page again. Werieth (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User has since left a message stating he's leaving the project, so the problem may be resolving itself. —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not the first time, alas. Resolute 18:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Shashini12311

Shashini12311 (talk · contribs) and their sockpuppets (Shashini123 (talk · contribs) and 61.245.172.23 (talk · contribs)) have repeatedly been adding content in the lede saying that Canadian Tamil Congress is a terrorist entity, usually the first sentence of the lede. The have added the same information to a number of other articles as well. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and they have been warned several times on their talk page by myself and another editor. They have ignored the warnings.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a note, it probably would have been good to notify the other two users even though you suspect that they are socks. G S Palmer (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on the other cases, but I don't see that the Canadian Tamil Congress article example has been handled well. Yes, the wording was misleading as it was a listing by the Sri Lankan government but the wording concentrated on the UN resolution the listing was said by the government to be under. And yes, it probably doesn't belong in the LEDE. And yes it needs a secondary source, preferably multiple.

But the listing of an organisation as a financier of terrorism by any government, no matter how questionable that listing may be according to others, surely belongs in the article. And while it may technically be the responsibility of people trying to add information to get the sourcing, wording and position right, continually reverting because it's wrong surely helps no one. In some cases even if not here, it may even stop the edit war.

I would note that the wording used here [62] is almost fair. It's still in the LEDE, but far down enough that it's a more minor issue which really should have been corrected rather than reverted. It also lacked a secondary source which is unfortunate, but does anyone really think no secondary source noticed/commented on such a controversial listing? (I definitely didn't and found a secondary source in 30 seconds.)

To be fair, the reversion came here [63] after the claim had been added for a second time, so there may have been some confusion, but User:70.29.181.53 who modified and moved the claim was clearly trying to fix the problem and improve the article, so they deserved to be helped not lumped in with the other editor. (The fact that the other editor added the claim a second time when it was already in the same paragraph in the LEDE suggests to me they weren't going to stop hence why I was careful with my wording earlier.)

In other words, rather than simply looking at bad edits as something to be reverted, people should remember to work out if there's actually something there which definitely should be in the article since the goal should always be to improve wikipedia. Particularly in a case like this where the addition is small, it's surely easy to see that there is actually something there that does belong in the article.

P.S. Despite being a strong defender of BLP, I would also object to any universal application of BLP to this article. Obviously people are involved in this organisation, as they are in any organisation, but it's large enough that issues which affect the organisation can't be said to directly affect individuals. Heck the only people currently named in the article (discounting sources) are a judge, a person the CTC sued and someone they gave an award to. This doesn't of course mean we shouldn't get things right, but we also shouldn't be applying the high standards which BLP rightly requires to large organisations, otherwise we might as just as well apply them to everything. (Of course BLP can still apply to stuff in the article. For example clearly there are possible BLP issues for anyone directly named in the article and we should make sure the stuff about them is correct and that it's worth mentioning them in the article.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I know this isn't really a ANI issue, but is there any general coverage about the recent listings. Not necessarily an article specific to the listings, perhaps coverage in a more general one like 'List of organisations banned by the Government of Sri Lanka'? It seems to me there's great coverage of the listings [64] but because so many organisations were listed at one time and many of the listings are controversial there often isn't specific discussion or even mention of the actual organisation. It may help to have a general article for coverage of the listings where such issues can be covered (probably linked as a 'main article' in the specific organisation articles where the listing is mentioned). Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jgstokes is CANVASSing AfDs

Jgstokes (talk · contribs)

User:Jgstokes is very active in the creation and editing of LDS-related articles. However, some of the biographical articles on LDS figures lack sourcing independent of websites and publications independent of the LDS church. One such article was Kevin S. Hamilton, which was redirected after a weeks-long AfD discussion here. He canvassed that AfD by leaving messages here, here, here and here. The messages were not neutrally-worded, and were targeted toward audiences likely to agree with his point of view on LDS articles. When he did this, I warned him here that canvassing AfDs was unacceptable. After an unsourced article on a second-tier LDS official was closed as delete, I nominated two more of them for deletion here and here. After making votes that completely ignored AfD and arguments-to-avoid protocol, Jgstokes then proceeded to canvass those AfDs again here, here, here and here. As noted, revious attempts to inform him of policy have failed. Could somebody set him on the right track policywise, both in regards to not canvassing and vis-a-vis arguments to avoid? pbp 14:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

From your last list of diffs:

Hey, I thought you'd like to know that the articles about Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer have been nominated for deletion. I have made my case for keeping them and will leave it to the consensus to decide. If you'd care to comment, I'm sure your perspective, whatever it might be, would be welcome. Thanks for all your great work on Wikipedia!

Wording looks fairly neutral to me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

User:Tjmayerinsf

I'm actually not sure where to report this, but I figure that listing this here is a good first step.

Long story short, recently the article Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation was put up for deletion. The premise sounded familiar and a little searching showed that sure enough, the article was deleted/incubated previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disconnect (2013 film). The article was moved to the incubator (and later draftspace). However what I shortly noticed about Mobilize is that a few days after the AfD was closed, User:Tjmayerinsf re-created the article under Mobilize. This isn't the first time he's done something like this, as he previously did this with Tulip Time: The Rise and Fall of the Trio Lescano, which was deleted via Afd in 2008. He recreated it three times after the close of the AfD and never addressed the issues for its deletion. He also re-created the article for David Chiu (attorney) several times despite it getting deleted for copyvio. The article for Chiu now reflects him as a politician and any concerns brought up in previous versions have been addressed, but not really by Tjmayerinsf. I'm going to try to see if I can find sources for Tulip Time before nominating it for a speedy, but the problem here is that we've blocked people for this sort of behavior and Tjmayerinsf has been editing since 2006. There's no reason why he shouldn't know the rules for notability and that re-creating articles after they're repeatedly deleted can be seen as disruptive. I see where he was warned for posting copyvio (that and promotional prose is a common deletion rationale for many articles he's edited) but not for reposting articles, but again- he's been editing since 2006 (about 8 years) and as such should have at least some knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines to know where this sort of editing behavior isn't kosher. If it was just the once or just the ones back in 2008 and so on it wouldn't bother me overly much, but Mobilize was created last year.

I figure it should be mentioned here, as this concerns me greatly because it makes me wonder how many articles he's written or edited that have issues with them that haven't been found yet. He's prolific and I hate to bring this to ANI, but this is the sort of thing that just isn't kosher and does need to be addressed. I've left him an official warning, but at some point this goes beyond "I wasn't warned, so I didn't know". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV issue

Is there something wrong with the administrator intervention against vandalism page? I've reported an IP who's been on a vandalism spree for the past hour (and they are still at it). And when I submitted the report, it appears that there is a backlog dating 1 June. Not sure if the admin's are aware, or if there is a tech fault. But I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Thanks. Wes Mᴥuse 15:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The backlog template is automatically set by the AIV bots. Could be that no admin is willing to involve himself/herself, or that they're not sure whether the IP needs to be blocked, since the edits don't appear to be straightforward, obvious vandalism. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. It isn't the backlog template though. There is a pending report on there dating 1 June. Wes Mᴥuse 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The template changes to backlog if there are five or more pending AIV requests, regardless of if they have been answered or not. Requests are removed manually if the user has not been blocked, and automatically if they have. Answered requests are left on there for an undetermined/arbitrary period of time, so the requester can see why action has not been taken. The 1 June request has since been answered. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request Neuroscience complaint be filed with possible reprimand of an editor

I want to file a complaint that began when I was not allow to post at two entries by a contributor or editor. To keep me from posting he has made serious allegations, including defamation of a scientist and notable person (who I cited as a reference source in various related entries) and who also has a Wikipedia entry. Additionally this editor has made false allegations of "copying" of this author by another, implying plagiarism (again falsely as I have checked the entries and the author cited the primary source, used quotation marks when appropriate, and there are absolutely no string of words that anyone could call "copying" or plagiarism). In fact I cited both authors as well as corrected false information in the second paragraph of the article. I was not allowed to post after that. The editor claiming that I was "promoting" an author and then began making a slate of of false accusations. The matter is serious and needs investigating to clear the author and reprimand the editor, who has put his territorial interest ahead of Wikipedia and has made serious but false and reckless allegations that can bring a lawsuit to Wikipedia. I'm not naming names because of the notice above about defamation. I attempted to go to "oversight," but the link was not working. There is a considerable paper trial at those entries, including the talk page of an administrator who became involved but ultimately has decided he does not want to get involved and advised that we come here. The information then is included in the Talk Page of History of psychosurgery and Talk Page of User talk:Randykitty under the subheadings: 9) "Assistance Required" and 12) "Do you remember this Edit?" I don't know if this is the correct place to post this information. Please advise and take action.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Notified Staug73 and Randykitty. LeBassRobespierre, Rk asked that you take this up with mediation, a third opinion or an RfC (I'll add to that dispute resolution). That's how we handle content disputes, and I concur with Rk that that's what's going on here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A certain user has stepped up their childish, vindictive nature

A certain user must think I'm an idiot and can't see what they are trying to do. They changed their tactics. They know very well that the "Results and schedule" box, separate from the other thing we've disputed over, has been unhidden each week to reveal what's underneath it, the next race. Isn't it funny how last week, when SOMEONE else unhid the FedEx 400 box, this certain user didn't say anything? But when I MYSELF unhide this week's race in the same fashion that the other user did last week, SUDDENLY the user in question has a problem with it? Also, isn't odd how they just NOW suddenly decided that they don't like the un-hiding of that box, when, after all these months, they NEVER had a problem with it? Seems fishy to me. Sounds like they know they've lost on the other thing, so they are now trying to stick it to me wherever they think they can, no matter how lame the reason. Let me ask, why last week did they NOT revert the OTHER editor who un-hid the box for the FedEx 400? It's because there's nothing there was wrong with it; the only thing wrong with it THIS time is the fact that it was ME who un-hid it. That's the vindictive nature of the person in question, and it's not fooling anyone.

This is the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man

This is what the box is meant to look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=prev&oldid=611353692 As you can see, that displays how the box indicates the upcoming race (which is a totally different section than the one being disputed a few weeks ago). This box has, by other editors as well as myself, been revealed each week using the un-hide feature in the editing process, to show the race valid for that week, and it's been done that way for quite some time. But, suddenly now, the user in question decided that they don't like it very much because they saw that this time it was ME who revealed it, and decided to use it as an opportunity to try to get under my skin. Why didn't the user in question revert it last week when it was some OTHER editor who un-hid the box? Funny how that works, isn't it? This is what it currently looks like, and as you can see, the box is missing now that the user in question hid it only for personally vindictive purposes, something they didn't do when it was another editor who made the same kind of edit last week that I made this week: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=next&oldid=611384932

And while I'm here, I may as well go ahead and let you know about another situation. Since clearly the user in question keeps an eye on what I do, they saw today an article for deletion conversation that I'm involved in, and decided to put their two cents in merely for the purpose of opposing me on it, again to try to stick it to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Brickyard_400

As you can see, all of it, the new tactics change to try to bother me, plus the butting into the deletion article conversation just to oppose me out of spite, has gotten to the point of nuttiness. I don't go around reverting other editors' edits out spite or for any other reason, I keep to myself. But the user in question not only does it, but also makes a habit out of it, even stooping to changing tactics when something else wasn't working for them. And who knows how many other users out there that they have done it too, especially the ones who maybe didn't take the time and effort to rightfully complain about it. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you please actually talk to the user you're in conflict with rather than coming to ANI straight off? This is about the third time in the last few weeks you have come here with the same issue (1st, 2nd, 3rd). Like we said before in those discussions, WP:DISCUSS with USM what their issue is and work it out between yourselves rather than coming to ANI every single time you think they're in the wrong. You're fighting about an infobox and the timing to reveal the results of a race not run yet, not actual article content. We're not under a WP:DEADLINE to have the edit show up or not until after the race, and does it really matter for an upcoming race? Also, anyone can comment on an AfD, and they only said they were going with article creation MO for arguing deletion, not some kind of vendetta. Someone interested in NASCAR racing and editing in the subject is going to comment in an NASCAR AfD; you can't get around that. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, I'd like to make a suggestion. Two, actually. First, read WP:TLDR: Nobody's going to be predisposed to listen to you if they think that you're ranting. Second, could you stop using URL's and use regular links instead? If you need to link to someone's contributions, it can be produced by typing [[Special:Contributions/Example]], which will render as Special:Contributions/Example. Thanks. G S Palmer (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:LaCenCt

Would any uninvolved admin check on this page please, user is transcluding other user's pages (including mine) on to their page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Have reported to WP:AIV as advised by the warning notice on thier page. Amortias (T)(C) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I delisted the AIV as it's not the normal vandal type and already being dealt with here. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone actually try to talk to them? They might have been trying to duplicate the "look" of a userpage they liked and ended up transcluding the whole thing inadvertently. I removed all that from the user and talk pages and left them a comment. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominally agree with FreeRangeFrog here; new users do weird things sometimes when they like how someone's userpage looks. It's really disconcerting when someone you don't even know does it, but it's something that should be handled via discussion. On the other hand, FreeRangeFrog's removal of the transclusions was reverted without comment. Given the attribution at the bottom of the page by LaCenCt, it seems pretty clear that the intent is to just copy the style of the page. If LaCenCt wants the format, we could just subst the userpage for him, then remove the admin templates or whatever. Anyway, Xaosflux, you might want to change that <includeonly> to be a bit friendlier than suggesting anybody who transcludes your userpage is a vandal (e.g., the kind of notice normal templates throw that should always be subst'd). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You might also try using <onlyinclude> if you really don't want your userpage to be transcluded. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• They're trolling. I've deleted and salted the page, and will block them the next troll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam:, I have no particular reason to doubt you, but it seemed fairly innocent to me. I've had someone copy my userpage before. The fact that the user didn't respond to queries about it is a bit annoying, but deleting and salting the userpage? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Except (1) Xaosflux has evidently had this problem before, since he created that header in 2006, and (2) Why Xaosflux's user page? No offence to Xaosflux of course (mine is worse) but it's not that fantastic a user page. It strains credulity that they innocently found that page and decided to use it as some kind of template. Combine that with reverting without explanation after it had been removed, and with their edits to Cluebot's page, and I'd say it's pretty clear they aren't innocently experimenting. If they want to experiment in their sandbox, that remains undeleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I have had the problem before, it used to be a more popular vandal/troll activity in the past. I claim no ownership of my userpage content, it is fairly bland; and encourage anyone to copy any aspect of it they would like (headers, clock, etc), however just transcluding it was a bit creepy. I haven't read up on community standards for this type of action lately, thus asking for someone else to look at it here. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I believe someone cut-and-pasted my talk page (with messages!) once. Again, it's a big fat "so-what" really, it's CCBYSA content, and I suppose with cut and paste they aren't attributing the unsigned bits, but I can't get excited about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
          
• (ec) I fail to see how this transclusion matters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC).
  

User:Useitorloseit and Ta-Nehisi Coates - request for topic ban

As of a half hour ago, User:Useitorloseit has made 310 edits to Wikipedia. The account has made only 33 edits to article space, 20 of them to a BLP article, Ta-Nehisi Coates. 19 of those 20 have been to insert disputed material about the juvenile arrest record of the subject of the article. With 310 edits, this user could have brought the article up to FA status, but instead the vast majority of those 310 edits have been to talk and project space, including multiple threads here and on WP:BLPN, arguing about this disputed material. Along the way this editor has been belligerent and accused other editors like myself and User:NorthBySouthBaranof of all manner of nonsense. It is clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and worse, has wasted the time of one or two dozen productive editors since February. This user should be topic banned this article and its talk page and can revisit this article and topic ban after he or she proves him or herself to be a productive Wikipedia editor and not an SPA. Enough is enough. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Enough is enough indeed. This editor's privileges should be constrained to anything but that BLP (at a minimum). Total time waster. Cwobeel (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread. [65] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban regarding all aspects of Ta-Nehisi Coates. Viewing all of Useitorloseit's contributions confirms that this is an SPA wanting to add negativity to a BLP. Their agenda was clearly stated in the first edit which has edit summary "added info about his criminal past". Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: This issue involves disputes over changing consensus and the quality of arguments for deciding consensus. I request RfC be allowed to run its course, due to repeated prior attempts to block discussion.

Content: This is the content dispute: Ta-Nehisi Coates is a blogger for the Atlantic magazine who focuses on issues of African-Americans, race relations, crime, young black males, inner city schools, etc. (Reparations for slavery and Shooting of Trayvon Martin are two examples of issues where he has had an impact). He has written about his discipline issues in high school over the years, and I want to include a mention of that. The proposed edit is this: "Coates attended Baltimore Polytechnic Institute but was expelled twice for disciplinary violations and he graduated from Woodlawn High School." The edit meets Wikipedia's content requirements: it is verifiable, based on the author's own repeated discussion of the incidents over the years. WP policy allows such self-referential sources. There is no original research: these links are written by the author, not me, and they are being used to support only one thing: the straight fact of the incidents, nothing else. Lastly, this is a neutral point of view: it doesn't obscure the existence of these incidents, nor does it emphasize them. I believe this edit should be added to the article.

Conduct: I definitely edit-warred in the beginning, but that is long past and I have addressed other concerns such as being an SPA here under "I don't edit Wikipedia often" [[66]]. Other users have abused the Noticeboard process to shut down debate: My first RfC was immediately deleted by an involved user, TheRedPenOfDoom, who then warned me on my Talk page. When I deleted [[67]] the warning, he reported me to the Obvious Vandalism [[68]] page. My edit was obviously not vandalism, and TheRedPenOfDoom deserves sanctions for misuse of the vandalism board to close down debate. The next edit [[69]] had 2-1 supporting, with 1 ambiguous. The 1 opposed, NorthBySouthBaranof, reverted it 3 times, then reported [[70]] me to the BLP board. The next edit [[71]] had a 3-3 split supporting/opposing. NorthBySouthBaranof talked about reverting to the last uncontroversial version due to no consensus [[72]], then IN HIS VERY NEXT POST, tried to have me topic banned [[73]]. He deserves sanctions for making false statements about the state of consensus at BLP & ANI noticeboards. There's more. When he reopened the 2nd RfC when it was closed minutes after I started it, he didn't include [[74]] the RfC tag, so it wouldn't attract other editors who might disagree with him. He harassed [[75]] or tried to prevent [76]] other editors who might support me from joining in. I am asking the RfC to be allowed to remain for 2 weeks to draw comment, then we can close it and I will accept consensus and move on. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What possible difference could the RFC make? You haven't taken no for an answer since February, and you've done it at the top of your lungs. Assuming the RFC does stay open, which I have zero objection to, why would we possibly believe that would be the end of it, since you've given no indication that you've ever been willing to drop the stick and move away from the dead horse. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Simple: because no discussion has ever been allowed to play out. Try me. Delete this topic ban, allow the RfC to stay for 2 weeks, and if I start again I'll support your topic ban. You don't have a clue about me and you've been wrong from the start. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There's been months and hundreds of edits of discussion already. You will apparently never be satisfied. I say leave the RFC open for two weeks and topic ban you. If you truly will be satisfied by the two week RFC, after all these months and hundreds of edits of complaining, then the topic ban will have no effect on you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've provided links on how many times debate has been disrupted by opposing editors. If you choose to ignore that, don't blame me. I stand by my request. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

References
References

Disagreement is not disruption. You've had ample opportunity to be heard. Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

One edit had 2-1 support; another had 3-3. So who says it was so clear-cut? Useitorloseit (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Ta-Nehisi Coates and all other BLPs, as well as 1RR on other pages as someone completely uninvolved, I had been considering leaving him a message about WP:Forum shopping after seeing him raise the issue repeatedly over the past week on different WP: pages I watch, but got the impression that would only get him to try and draw me into an article issue I'm completely apathetic toward. Clear WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC) -- EDIT: After further discussion with Useitorloseit (see below), I'm seeing severe WP:CIR, WP:TEND, and WP:NOTHERE issues with this editor, and do not think he should be near any BLP and should be restricted to 1RR on other pages to mitigate potential uncooperative behavior. This is if if we continue to let him edit at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Thomson, one editor said there was no consensus[[77]], then 20 minutes later claimed on ANI that consensus was clearly against me[[78]] and I should be topic-banned. You cannot work out consensus if people will openly lie like that and poison the well against you. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-read what NorthBySouthBaranof actually posted before a month of dealing with your arguing. He said that there was no consensus to include your addition, that your addition was controversial, and that the last non-controversial version did not have your addition. He never said what you said he said. There is no hypocrisy in what actions of his you've presented. Honestly, that you failed to get that from the post you linked to me (assuming you weren't hoping that I would just take your word for it) only reinforces my views on the matter. In fact, it leaves me worried. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I quote: "If you believe that there is no consensus, then we will have to revert back to a version before you began introducing the issue, removing any and all mention of the incident until such time as a consensus is further developed." He even suggested which edit to revert back to. Sounds like he was saying "we need to work it out", but then he suddenly went to ANI so he wouldn't have to bother. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And I quote: "there has never been a consensus developed that any mention of the incident belongs in the article". Also, what you're selectively quoting is, even not in the proper context, saying that your controversial addition to the article should not be included until and unless there is an actual consensus to include it. It does not preclude (but definitely includes) the possibility that a consensus to not include it would develop, as has happened. Consensus is not created, changed, reversed, or otherwise affected by one editor refusing to get the point or drop the stick and back away from the horse. A consensus has developed since then, and you are the only person who doesn't see that. And a month is not "suddenly," it is plenty of time to work plenty out. It just didn't work out the way you wanted. If you continue to fail to get this, I'm bumping my vote to a topic ban on all WP:BLPs and a WP:1RR restriction. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, "suddenly" referred to his posting on ANI 20 minutes after talking about reverting on the talk page. I never said it was a month. I will accept consensus; I just expect to be allowed to have an RfC without having it deleted for once. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Which ANI report? Because the link you've provided was for over a month ago, and this ANI report is from today. Doing your job for you and searching NorthBySouthBaranof's contributions to find out what you should have linked, I see that you've generally not gotten it through your skull that the work is DONE, and that your addition lost. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The link you say I "should have linked" is the same one I did link, in my post at 00:26 4 June. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The one you linked to at :28 after, this link, is from Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. It is not the other ANI report you kept talking about. You said that he went from Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates to ANI in the span of 20 minutes, and provided no evidence. You kept discussing some ANI report without clarifying that you were not talking about this one, but an earlier one. You could/should have linked to him filing the report as well as proof and clarification, and so that your claim that he went to ANI 20 minutes later (as if it's relevant) was proven, and so that people new to this conversation would not think that you're talking about this ANI report from a month later. Without that link, the only conclusion that was possible to draw was that you were talking about this ANI thread we're in now, instead of the one from earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The editor is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia, merely to attempt to drag a living person through the mud through a unbroken obsession about a single minor incident. support topic ban . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per TRPoD. — goethean 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Inadmissible personal attack

I have been critical of the sourcing of the article Democracy & Nature. As a result, I was accused of "trying to destroy" the article on the talk page. The article is now at AfD. I requested at the talk page to refrain from personal attacks and was now answered with this edit, which I think is absolutely and totally inadmissible. --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

They've already slipped to Godwin's Law? Not a personal attack - not civil, but not an attack the panda ₯’ 22:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the attack, as well as the earlier attack in the header of a talk page discussion, and warned the user. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. The implication is clear. I'm a Nazi book burner. This kind of insult is inadmissible. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you mean impermissible. Anyway, it's a stupid thing for the other party to say, but a sanctionable personal attack? Meh. All too often, people get frustrated and say stupid things that only hurt the discussion. Under ideal circumstances we ignore that and try to keep things on topic. If the incivility or even personal attacks don't disrupt the discussion, then the discussion can be handled normally. If it persists, then sanctions can be considered. I don't think we're to the latter point, even though there's apparent excessive personal discussion at the talk page. In short, I don't see the need for sanctions just yet, though it would be good for an admin to keep an eye on the dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It was NOT an attack and it was NOT a comment. I explained to "my friend" that I'm busy reading about Nazi book burnings (a very important historical event) so I do not have the time to comment to his claims. I have more important things to do. It looks like that some people are more sensitive than others and in the case they happen to be wiki administrators who knows all the tricks and rules etc they use them for no reason. Another problem is that my talk page is not really mine. Someone comes, delete what he believes is not an appropriate behavior and later he open a discussion about. I though it must be the other way round. You open a discussion and at the end you delete or not the comments, attacks or whatever. I though wiki is an open project but looks like its semi-protected and semi-open. Some views are allowed while others not or with other words you have to fight to prove that you are not an elephant. I’m afraid what is left from the poor liberal democracy (Freedom of speech) now is demolished by the hands of some wiki administrators (bureaucrats). Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh fee and faw. This diatribe strongly suggests that you are not here to write an encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

See my editing history to see why I'm here. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A correction: The phrase "Another problem is that my talk page is not really mine." I wrote above is not correct because my "not civil behavior" took place at the D+N talk page not mine. The rest is ok. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You also have a bizarre belief that you have "freedom of speech" on a private website. That's funny. Don't make that mistake again. the panda ₯’ 00:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Nikosgreencookie has now inserted an enemies list on their user page [79]. Rgrds. --64.85.215.195 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom deleting academic sources and inserting self-published Shugden websites

Kjangdom is not even remotely pretending to adhere to Wikipedia policies anymore. Not even remotely. With misleading edit summaries, he is deleting whole swaths of journalistic and academic sources such as Bultrini, Dodin and Thurman while inserting self-published Shugden websites. And he never denied being a director of the International Shugden Community, whether here at ANI or on Bushranger's talk page. Lastly, most of his edits are from old Wikipedia revisions i.e. meatpuppeting Truthsayer62, a blocked editor. Heicth (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)