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:Wooeyparks' edit war with themselves

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

---

Wooeyparks (talk · contribs) has been adding, deleting or reverting "Gakuen Basara (Yukimura Sanada)" (and sometimes other lines, or subheading names) over and over again. For example there's maybe 50 edits like these [a, b, c] in the Hiro Shimono page history. It almost looks like an automated process. The only reason I can think they might be doing this is to try and increase their edit count.

I've identified at least 5 other articles with this repetitive editing pattern by Wooeyparks: Mamoru Miyano, Nobuhiko Okamoto and (perhaps less extensively) Junichi Suwabe, Kazuyuki Okitsu and Katsuyuki Konishi. I suspect there are more, less-easy-to-identify example. The gaps between edits sometimes span days, and Wooeyparks' contributions show that they alternate between articles, and Wooeyparks often contributes legitimate edits as well as these strange repetitive ones.

I contacted Wooeyparks on their talk page and they deleted my first post [as seen here]. I then contacted them again, and a 3rd time after 3 weeks. They deleted those posts along with others [as seen here]. I am at a loss as to what to do—Msmarmalade (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please advise—Msmarmalade (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Any input appreciated —Msmarmalade (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Any input at all.—Msmarmalade (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here and for your patience. Our admin ranks are getting slightly understaffed, and some harder to handle issues are left to linger. I have now blocked the editor for one week (they had been blocked for disruptive editing in April already), and left a note on his talk page. Let's hope that he'll come back to explain himself and continue his productive editing while dropping the strange edits he makes inbetween. Fram (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to it :). What should I do with this discussion until then? Should it be kept open for Wooeyparks to respond? Or can I leave it to be archived?—Msmarmalade (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll just let it be archived. He had his chance to respond here (he made plenty of edits during its course), now he can discuss this on his talk page. If things don't change after the block expires, you can always drop me a note or start a new section here. Fram (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note here; I've changed the block to indefinite. See WP:Long-term abuse/Wooey Parks, this is either a reincarnation or a troll but in either case not here to be useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:SubSeven - Violation of Wiki Civil and more

Used the comment box to refer to me as an idiot. When I warned him of 3rr revert policy he was going to soon violate. [1]

Used the comment box to speak to me in a demeaning manner, called me slow. [2]

Wikihounded me by following me into an article he has never edited at. [3].

Is engaging in an edit war amongst many users in the Royce Gracie article. Seems to be have a claim of ownership. Engaging in Wiki:Own

CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question for you. Please do so next time when you submit an ANI report. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to give a hoot about UFC, but stuff like this, while not a hanging offence, is really not on, regardless of the circumstances. Note that this discussion would have shown up on User:SubSeven's notifications since the editor who brought this here included his name in the opening post. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

• 1) an edit summary on my talk page is not a message directed at you.
• 2) I didn't call you slow, you may want to re-read that.
• 3) you may also want to re-read WP:HOUND, here is a quote with relevant parts bolded: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."
• 4) 'edit war amongst many users'. Nope. Just you, actually. --SubSeven (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling me an idiot was quite unnecessary. [4] CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) His response to another user who had the same issue was "take it up with the ufc" [5]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen (CrazyAces489—SubSeven), you can't fight in here, this is the octago... oh wait. Don't make me pull out the WP:GS/MMA ceremonial mace and brandish it against both of you. Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Been a while since the MMA articles poked its ugly head up again. @Hasteur: best beat that ugly head down with the mace. Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• SubSeven, you are being a pain, if we are honest The problem is that you are taking a disagreement and turning it into antagonizing and ad hominem, per Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Attacking the individual instead of their argument. That said, I think the "slow" comment wasn't disparaging mentally challenged people, just saying someone isn't paying attention. It could be taken both ways, but I see it in the least offensive light. Calling someone an idiot, however, wasn't smart and is technically actionable. I'm not prone to block you today because it was a singular incident and we all err, but I strongly suggest you avoid being a pain in the future, or a block is more likely. I want to also remind everyone of this [6], which authorizes broad and sweeping powers to admin in the MMA article area, as a General Sanction. That means one warning, then a person can be indef blocked, topic banned, or any other creative sanction the admin decides is appropriate, and only the Arb Committee or the entire community (WP:AN) can override that sanction, and let me tell you, the community isn't kind when it comes to disruption from MMA articles, they are sick of it. The community's patience for problems in MMA articles expired a long time ago. My suggestion is that we all lick our wounds, go write some articles, use the talk page, get a consensus, live with it when most people disagree with you, and try to keep arguments about the merits, not someone's personality. Then you never have to worry about sanctions. Dennis - 2¢ 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

After the 24 hours passed for 3rr violation warning had passed [7], SubSeven simply went right back to deleting all the sourced entries I placed in [8], [9] and one other place. I have no problem taking things to the talk page [10] , I have also asked him to initiate a RFC [11] (I believe would give the community to decide what the article should state). I only want to give an objective article and continue on creating articles for everyone to enjoy. [12] CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, I thought this inquiry was about my lack of civility? I have stated my position exhaustively on the talk page. You just exited the conversation and continued reverting. --SubSeven (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When I first added reliable sources and additions to the page Royce Gracie you simply reverted it and stated that it wasn't a true full rules fight. I placed it on a separate section stating that it was a limited rules fight with a source. You simply reverted it. [13] When I put in a BJJ match with a source in a separate section, you reverted it. [14] You stated it wasn't his total record. Every posting I have made reliable sources are put in. You simply reverted it. At no point did I exit the conversation in the talk page as per [15]. Your last posting was on Oct 26, while I posted on the 27 and the 29th. I have repeatedly asked you to open up an RFC as this is apparently an old issue that has shown up many times on this page. [16][17] [18] [19] CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• You both need to stop editing the article and use the talk page to get a consensus with other editors. I thought I made it clear, but let me make it brutally clear: if you both keep warring, you both will get blocked. Which of you is right? I don't know, I don't care. Let the interested editors on the talk page decide. But the constant reverting isn't going to be tolerated. And to be even more clear: You don't need to pass 3RR to get blocked for edit warring, that is just the bright line where there is no question. There are plenty of people who could join in the discussion. Go drop a NEUTRAL note at MMA Notability and plenty will join in and help you determine what is a real fight/official and what isn't. Or keep reverting and both of you will get blocked or topic banned. Unquestionably, if if keeps up, I will drop General Sanctions warnings on both of your pages, which is one step away from a topic ban. Seriously, I don't want to do that but I absolutely will. You must go and POLITELY work this out on the talk page and stop warring. Dennis - 2¢ 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Thank you. All I want is other opinions to be placed in. Also how do I do an RFC, which I believe has many editors put an opinion into a topic so a consensus can be made. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Go read up at WP:RFC, there is a template, it isn't that hard. You just have to make sure it is neutral. Dennis - 2¢ 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dennis Brown I already rattled the saber in the sheath and they continued to misbehave. I've dropped GS/MMA warnings on both of their pages so now these editors are now on notice that they need to significantly shape up. Hasteur (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• No apology needed, I can't blame you and this is exactly what the General Sanctions are there for. Hopefully, nothing more than the warning will be needed. You and I both remember the Great MMA War of 2011-2012, and we certainly don't want to go down that road again. Dennis - 2¢ 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown and Hasteur, Subseven dropped a posting on my talk page to try to get some sort of consensus here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Dispute_on_Royce_Gracie_page So we are finally getting some sort of positive movement on the article. This was before Hasteur dropped his warning on both of our pages. I thought an RFC or third opinion was the only option. Apparently this an option also. I have never heard of the Great MMA War of 2011-2012, can you please show me somewhere I can read it. It seems pretty interesting. Thanks CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The ANI and AN archives are littered with MMA skirmishes from those years. There were virtually weekly appearances by the usual suspects that general sanctions had to be applied. Blackmane (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The MMA War was literally an attack on the project by a faction of people striving to delete as many MMA articles as they could, which sent the entire community into a frenzy. This is... a content dispute that happens to be in an MMA BLP article. If you really think this could launch another war, let me set your mind at ease, because it seems to me that CrazyAces489 and I are the only two editors who care about the state of this article at all. --SubSeven (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you mischaracterize the Great MMA Wars. I did a great deal of mediating back then, as I could give a care less about MMA, so I was neutral. There were plenty of people trying to include the most trivial facts and unsubstantiated articles as well. It wasn't one sided. The main point is that the tolerance for ANY fighting in MMA, whether it is related to that previous war or not, is very low. Overwhelmingly, the community stays out of the notability and content issues there and doesn't force any standard on that area, other than behavior. It boils down to "you stay in your yard, I'll stay in mine". Understandably, the community is very gun shy about any MMA problems that make it all the way to ANI. It isn't even about the individuals, we just know how easy it is for that particular walled garden to burst over into the rest of the place. Once General Sanctions were issues, allowing any admin to swing the hammer as needed, most of the problems magically disappeared, making that decision one of the most successful applications of General Sanctions we've ever seen. As for consensus, however you build it, we are fine with it, as long as it doesn't spill back here. Dennis - 2¢ 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Any place I could look at the sanctions or just about the wars CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The archives at MMA Notability and the archives here at ANI. There were also a number of SPIs and RFC/Us filed. There is no single archived that catalogs the entire debacle. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown Once the hammers started swinging faster than new soldiers could be recruited to the war, the external communities decided to take their toys and go home by establishing their own wiki where they can nitpick and document to their own heart's content at http://www.mmawiki.com/. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect idea for a topic like this. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

There is a full-scale edit warring in the article involving multiple users. I am not suggesting (yet) that the users be sanctioned, but I would appreciate if someone takes a look and takes some action like e.g. page protection or discretionary sanctions. I did edit the article long time ago, so that I am involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• 6 edits yesterday, 1 today, 1 the day before. Looks like they are sticking to 1RR. I don't see the need for any drastic action yet. Dennis - 2¢ 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of content that had references being repeatedly removed for what appears to be WP:I just don't like it reasons. 20 pages of talk archive! And really, how many times does Volunteer Marek have to repeat the link WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before someone starts to scream? He's done it 14 times so far in the active talk page and it is no substitute for actual discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, indeed I guess they self-oganized to stick to 1RR. There was some attempt on the action a week ago, but it was suddenly stopped by TParis (who was afraid that an intervention of an American admin could be unwanted).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be some tag teaming, hard to prove, I'm just saying the article edit volume is manageable and I can't see any action to take there. As for the talk page, that is a mess, but better the talk page than the article. Being an American (and ex-military to boot), I'm not sure my input is any more welcome. Dennis - 2¢ 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point, Dennis. I know we have an admin teaching English in China right now. Perhaps they'd be the least biased here. Or an Australian admin? Do we have any sysops from South America maybe?--v/r - TP 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia lost a lot of people in the incident and imposed sanctions on Russia. China, Latin America, India, Pakistan, or South Africa would be the best locations for an admin willing to do anything there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am South American. I think I could help then? → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your intervention will be certainly welcome in any case, but what I mean is that a South American users run considerably lower chances to be accused in affiliation with one side of the conflict than Americans, Australians, Europeans, or Russians.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently a user wanted to report this matter to WP:AE (where it belongs), but changed his mind [20]. Given that, I think reporting this here (or anywhere) was not such a good idea. And yes, I agree with Dennis. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion. I personally have no problem with an American admin. I would have a serious problem with someone who claims that tag teaming is "hard to prove" when there is very obvious and very serious OWNership by editors who insist they know "the truth" even though there's an ongoing investigation. Do they know something the investigators don't know? USchick (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If so, how many "tag teams" do you think operate here, who exactly are members of each "team", and what exactly proofs of "tag-teaming" (as opposed to collaborative editing in good faith) do you have? My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting a new sanctions request about this. Do you think now is a good time? USchick (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I think that casting aspersions is a very bad idea, unless you have evidence to support your claims. I do not really see anything except a few people acting in a good faith. I think you should either remove your comment above (this is my suggestion) or provide your evidence at WP:AE, which would be a proper noticeboard for such case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I will think about it. USchick (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the process. To ask for Sanctions to be enforced, can I ask on the talk page or somewhere else? USchick (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ask an advice from any administrator who you think would be knowledgeable and uninvolved in editing pages on Eastern Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The admins here have acknowledged that there's a problem on the talk page. Can you please provide some guidance on how to proceed? Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. When it's time to block people, admins have a lot to say, but when it's time to offer constructive advice, there's no one to be found? I bet admins would get a lot more respect if they were wiling to take on a leadership role instead of acting like jailers. Just saying. USchick (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are three avenues you may want to take. First, if one of the editors behaves disruptively, he or she can be reported here or at 3RR Noticeboard, depending on the situation, or eventually even at arbitration enforcement. I would say there is very little chance for smth to happen - for example, once I was trying to deal with the editor who was adding {{fact}} templates to figure captions, and wanted to get references for the Constitution of Russia (you know, with ISBN etc), and I could only get him blocked from the fourth attempt, and my first attempt resulted in someone lecturing me that this is a proper behavior, and I am attacking a good-faith user. Furthermore, if this is a purely content dispute (and if you ask me, I would say it currently is), WP:DRN is at your service, and then mediation. I am not really looking forward, since you are in minority, and the majority can simply ignore the dispute resolution attempts, but you can try nevertheless. Finally, the most difficult route, which so far nobody tries to take, is to take every single source and get consensus elsewhere on whether the source is reliable in this situation. For example, if you think RT is a reliable source - take it to the corresponding noticeboard, insist that it gets evaluated, and if it is concluded to be a reliable source as far as Ukraine is concerned, info from RT can be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a bad idea about the RS noticeboard. Thanks!!! USchick (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But always do the search. This particular source was discussed numerous times, most recently here and becomes less and less reliable every day. Disputing questionable sources on the RS noticeboard is enormous waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism and Paid Self-Promotion by Equine Canada aka user:CanadianEquestrianTeam

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

---

The corporation Equine Canada has been using an account user:CanadianEquestrianTeam (after previously editing anonymously from the Equine Canada owned IP address 173.195.59.242) to remove fully sourced and referenced information, and to replace it with unreferenced self-promotional material, in the articles Canadian Equestrian Team and Equine Canada.

(1) It has blatantly violated WP:SELFPROMOTION policy by the fact that these these edits by the corporation Equine Canada, all designed to either hide unflattering information about itself or to hide positive information about other equestrian organizations

(2) It has violated WP:PAY because these edits originate from Equine Canada's corporate office and are therefore made by Equine Canada's paid communications staff

(3) Its username CanadianEquestrianTeam blatantly violates WP:ORGNAME against corporate names, and attempts to act as if it is uniquely authoritative on all matters of equestrian athletes, instead of being just one amongst a large number of Canadian equestrian federations.

(4) Its only edits are for self promotion to two closely related articles, Equine Canada and Canadian Equestrian Team violating WP:SPA policy against single purpose accounts

CanFan57 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it would be an appropriate report for WP:UAA. Ivanvector (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

n/m - you did already. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Longterm IP spammer

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

---

Since January 2014, 195.47.226.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been exclusively spamming content from http://www.listofwonders.com/ to multiple articles despite many warnings. Today the IP created the named account Bellresolve who also started adding the spam link to the article of Colossus of Rhodes and edit-warred about it in support of the IP. The named account has been blocked. I think the longterm IP spammer should also be blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for three months by User:Materialscientist. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

• Thank you both. Nice seeing you Bish. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User explicitly claims that they are using sockpuppets and sophisticated tools to deliberately introduce copyrighted material into articles

I was looking back through some discussions when I landed on User:Kainaw's talk page. This user, who I know used to be extremely active on Wikipedia, and a very competent Wikipedia user, has taken on what seems to be a personal vendetta against Wikipedia as a result of the blackout a couple years ago that protested certain bills in the US Congress. While I understand that this claim was made more than a year ago, I feel like I should bring it to your attention. In particular, what I find concerning is the following statement, which I am copying directly from their user page here.

"So, instead of editing Wikipedia, I develop tools to convert Wikipedia pages into copyright infringement pages by using multiple registered accounts in multiple passes, changing only a few words at a time. I made multiple offers to make tools to help Wikipedia in exchange for an honest answer as to why Wikipedia was blacked out, but I only called many terrible names for not worshipping Jimbo. I figure that eventually someone will figure out that there is tons of copyrighted material on Wikipedia, but as open as I am about it, I don't think they will make the connection that it is being put there on purpose. -- kainaw™ 17:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)"

Given the fact that this claim, in which Kainaw appears to admit to vandalizing Wikipedia in a sophisticated way, was made at least 1½ years after the blackout, it clearly is not just a momentary temper tantrum. I have no idea if Kainaw is still active in this way, or if they still have strong feelings, but I do think that it may be worth at least a bit of investigation. If Kainaw spent 1½ years stewing over this, it is possible that they may still not have worked past their obsession.

I have not been a very active editor the past couple years, and I really have been away from most of the drama and politics of Wikipedia during that time. I do not plan to personally pursue this any further (and really, I wouldn't know where to begin), and I make no claim that I feel like I personally need some kind of resolution in this matter. I am just leaving this with you on this board to do with as you wish.

Here is the permanent link to the page as it is at the time I am making this post.

Falconus^{p t c} 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The user has not been around for 1 year and 3 months since their last edit. I would say a warning for suspected sockpuppetry and vandalism (and even a block if necessary) would be in order if they were active, but the user is inactive, making even an indefinite block pointless.

Why is this being brought up now instead of when this was posted anyway? Isn't it a little late for any action now? Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) He said he would use multiple accounts to carry it out, so, lack of activity on the Kainaw account wouldn't necessarily mean that he hadn't followed through. --SubSeven (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius: of course I would have mentioned something sooner... Except I didn't read that until yesterday. SubSeven: That's exactly my concern, that the other accounts may still be active (assuming that Kainaw was serious about that in the first place). Falconus^{p t c} 10:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds fair to block the sockpuppet accounts, if they can be found. Falconus, do you have a list of any suspected sockpuppets? A list and diffs may help make your case for a possible sanction of Kainaw. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius, you pretty much have all of the information now that I have. I interacted a little bit with Kainaw back in the day, before they left, but I really can't think of anything else that's relevant at the moment. They were a highly active editor, maybe moreso than any Wikipedian that I have encountered since, so Kainaw would definitely know intimately the ins and outs of Wikipedia (at least the way it was a couple of years ago). I have never investigated any users in any kind of depth, so I am afraid that it is up to other editors to pursue this (or not) further - I really have no idea how I would even begin to try to figure out Kainaw's activities. Let me know if you have any other questions, but for now that's all I've got. Falconus^{p t c} 21:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute about oblasts of Ukraine

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

---

Derianus, is, well, a sock of a banned user Tobias Conradi. He quacks pretty loudly, and an SPI was filed, but closed for technical reason, since the last sock of Conradi was blocked too long ago. He must be then blocked based on the behavioral evidence, which is for me pretty much obvious. Irrespectively, Derianus creates too much disruption. He got interested in the administrative division of the post-USSR states (similarly to Androoox, the last blocked sock of Conradi), and he is not really interested in discussing anything, and following WP:BRD. Whereas some of his edits are not disruptive, most of them are, and I have to correct them every morning (he usually edits while I sleep). There are plenty of edits and the matter is getting out of hand. One example of his modus operandi: he is not aware of the fact that all republics of the USSR were divided into raions (district) and insists Ezhiki and me need to send a scan of a source to him [21]. Here is another, outrageous example of his modus operandi. He listens to the discussion between Ezhiki and me whether a bunch of redirects should be created, and how the targets are best sourced (Talk:Administrative divisions of Crimea#X Municipality). I create the rediects. Then he removed sourced material from the article I just added [22] and nominates the redirect for deletion since it is not mentioned in the target [23]. Of course it is not mentioned, because he just removed it from the target with the source. And, sure, he then accuses Iryna Harpy and me in vandalism [24]. This needs to be stopped, and I obviuosly can not just block this sock since his attacks are directed at me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for coming already fourth or fifth time this month to ANI. For whatever reason, we have a steady stream of dormant and new users editing disruptively in Russian and Ukrainian topics. Whereas this one seems to be unrelated to the others, it is really very depressing when a bunch of new users start introducing issues to the articles which have been already discussed to death previously and rejected, and then start to teach other users Wikipedia policies - when they themselves are not ready to even accept WP:CONSENSUS. This makes editing in these areas — which is my main business here — very uncomfortable.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Derianus is probably not a new editor - his sixth edit was to start a requested move, and he was clearly familiar with Wikipedia processes. As I have been involved in the unpleasant RM discussion at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine (can someone please close it), I don't think I can take any action, but it would be good if someone else could (as I mentioned on WP:ANRFC, there's also a case of WP:TWINKLEABUSE here [25]). Number 57 10:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RM is closed. I believe Oblasts of Ukraine falls under the ARBCOM restrictions for Eastern Europe and warned him as such. Rather than an outright block, I wonder if a topic ban would be productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban will certainly solve all the problems we have with this user in Eastern European articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBEE exists, one warning, then any reasonable sanction. Dennis - 2¢ 17:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter is constantly harassing me. He reverts well sourced edits [26] [27] [28] claiming "get consensus first" and "UNDUE". This has been brought up at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine#Fact removal by User:Ymblanter. Above he complains about me asking for sources, but that is the way I thought Wikipedia works - providing verifiable sources? Then Ymblanter invents claims about me: 1) "he is not aware of the fact that all republics of the USSR were divided into raions" - I am and was. I don't know why he made that up. In fact, I am the one who added many of these entities to the article raion. 2) On Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine he invented another story about me "They also renamed all Belarusian raions to districts" - which is a blatant lie.

Regarding the larger issue concerning Eastern Europe I would like to quote User:RGloucester, directed towards Ymblanter: You'll notice that these disputes only apply to administrative divisions in Eastern-Central Europe, indicative of the problem we face here. No one anywhere suggests that we move Provinces of China to shěng of China. The vast majority of articles on administrative divisions in countries use English-language terminology. The only ones that do not are these few Eastern-Central European ones. Krais, oblasts, voivodeships. I'm surprised we're not being made to refer to Russian federal subjects as "subyekty of Russia". I'm also surprised that Polish editors like the bizarrely half-translated "Voivodeship", which seems more insulting than either no translation or a full translation.

There is a wall around articles about Ukraine and partially Belarus and Russia, that User:Ymblanter and User:Ezhiki are defending. They work against using the most common English terminology for several articles. Almost all media sources name the oblasts "regions". But even that fact is removed by Ymblanter. Where is the difference to vandalism here?

I am fine with a topic ban for six months on terminology for administrative entities of post-USSR area, but it should be applied to Ymblanter too. Also, there should be sanctions against him for content removal. Derianus (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban for this user, even though I support using English-language terminology. His behaviour has been out-of-line, and has veered consistently into the realm of personal attacks. I may disagree with both Ymblanter and Ezhiki, but I respect them as editors and administrators. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • User:RGloucester - Can you show a source where my behavior was "out-of-line"? Or are you now just joining those that make things up, because they are you friends? Do you "respect" Ymblanter for making up false statements about me? For removing well sourced content? For his personal attacks on me? Derianus (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• The edit-arring of Derianus in this very topic demonstrates that a block is really needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Continued edit-warring [29] (WP:POINT)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  The hatnote was in discussion, which started 20:12. Ymblanter shows up there at 20:48, well after crying for block. 20:52 Ezhiki gives an answer. 21:04 I give a thank you to both of them. Now I see the message here. Derianus (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Could someone block them immediately please [30]? Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you, that edit points to the reason why I came back here: User:Ezhiki is promoting physical violence.: "If I ever get a chance to see you in person, remind me to go to a grocery store, buy a frozen trout, and slap you with it". Derianus (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary by User:Derianus:

1. Promotion of physical violence against me by Admin User:Ezhiki ([31] "If I ever get a chance to see you in person, remind me to go to a grocery store, buy a frozen trout, and slap you with it")
2. Spreading of false claims about me by Admin User:Ymblanter ([32] "They also renamed all Belarusian raions to districts though the consensus was exactly the opposite." - while it was Admin User:Ymblanter himself to start with moving articles [33], [34])
3. Spreading of false claims about me by User:Iryna Harpy ([35])
4. Invention of the fact that I am sockpuppet, spreading of that claim before the investigation closes by Admin User:Ymblanter (see section start, and [36], [37], [38])

Derianus (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Indef-block him already

Oh please. We don't topic-ban disruptive socks of banned users, who were banned for the same kind of behavior and exhausting community patience: we block them indefinitely and nuke their contributions. I opened the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tobias_Conradi on Oct 29 and provided quite substantial evidence, and nobody took any action other than a WP:BURO denial of checkuser. Please don't make me dig deeper into behavioral evidence and writing idiosyncracies (such as debating in bulleted lists); it WP:QUACKs loud and clear. I kind of understand why User:Ymblanter didn't block him himself, per WP:INVOLVED, although dealing with socks of banned users is an exemption from all restrictions. We recently had an ARBCOM case dealing with mere restoration of a talk page comment by a banned user, but we're letting Conradi's obvious socks wreak havoc, for reasons that escape me. Administrators, please administrate. No such user (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Given my experience with Tobias Conradi socks, I'd have to agree here. A few other editors familiar with Tobias, perhaps JaGa and Dpmuk, can certainly look at this as well. I'll block the account, and Tobias has been told on a seriously large number of occasions how to go about appealing his ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite convinced that's them. Given the tendency for multiple socks (there are almost definitely accounts we've not yet linked) and other reasons I won't go into here (WP:BEANS) I'd like to see a check-user take a look at this but have no idea about how to go about getting the clerk's decision over-turned. At the very least I'd like to see a check-user rather than a clerk, preferably one that has dealt with this case, to take a look a this. Ping User:Deskana, User:Tiptoety, User:Courcelles as CUs previously active on this case and who have been active recently. Dpmuk (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything about the proper procedure to ask for a CU again after a clerk decline so just boldly changed the template back to a requested CU. Dpmuk (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

On it, will look, and report at SPI. This is obviously him, though. Courcelles 04:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor

Ahmedzaibaloch1121 (talk · contribs) was blocked 3 times between August and September this year (last time for 1 month) for disrupting Wikipedia, but he continued to carry on with the same work, filling Baloch-related articles with very large amount of unsourced nonsense that is based on WP:OR. When it was blocked IPs starting with 39.48. [39] as well as Balochfaisalyar (talk · contribs) and Mohammadhassanibaloch (talk · contribs) were editing the same articles it was editing. I'm very sure these are all the same person, promoting Balochism by whatever means necessary.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a giant hatchet to Baloch people so I expect to see these editors come out of the woodwork soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, it was beyond repairable for me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not give such a vandal/sockpuppeteer a free pass to disrupt the project. What he has been doing is just disgusting.[40]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I really stepped into it: South-east Asian association football article problems

• Druryfire (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), particularly with edits like this after I offered a step-by-step explanation of each problem (see the history) and a detailed rebuttal of why restoring the material is incorrect.
• Tommy1933 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Two other editors have accused him of vandalizing articles for removing material and the editor has been generally uncivil in his responses.
• SveinFalk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Has been concerned with Tommy1933's edits and has been uncivil in his descriptions of that behaviour.

It's all a mess, like this edit. And there are even more anonymous editors who are involved, almost none of whom speak English as their first language and who are reluctant to discuss their edits: they just "know they're right".

I agree to leave all of the articles alone if someone with blocking ability can take these three editors and explain why their behaviour is not constructive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view the edit history at User talk:Tommy1933, specifically the mass posting warnings and reverting when they are deleted (8 times for one editor, 13 times for another, within 24 hours) constitutes harrassment, or close enough. I've warned Druryfire and SveinFalk accordingly. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've had conversations with Druryfire and Tommy1933 at WP:AIV and at my talk page. Both seem to be making good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. An unfamiliarity with some of Wikipedia's policies combined with a lack of communication seem to be the real issue. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

...Hm. That did not go as planned. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I`m sure it went exactly as you had planned, Richard Yin! You are supporting/defending Tommy1933, and is blind to all the shit he has done and are doing! What are the both of you editing my talk page for?? I know why he`s doing it. It`s to provoke and make more shit! But why are you? I blanked it since I`m not going to be here anymore, and then both of you edited it again!

I`m done editing Wiki! I have used hundreds of hours this year searching for and collecting info on Thai football and more, putting it together and adding to Wiki articles, but no more! When people like this Indonesian kid can vandalise like he has done recently, and other editors actually support/defend him, then it shows that Wiki ain`t a serious place, and I can use my free time elsewhere.

Tommy1933 has removed whole, referenced sections. He has removed links to official external sites to remove possible references, and then posted "not referenced" boxes all over articles (up to 10 in one article!). He has not made any response to messages from me or others about this, only "rolling on the floor laughing" and other shit, which shows that his intent was to destroy what others has used years to build! Tommy1933 should be banned from Wiki, not supported and defended! SveinFalk (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@SveinFalk: If you felt that way, and had evidence that you were right (and it seems like you did), you should've reported him to ANI or even AIV, not started a massive edit war on Tommy1933's talk page by copy-pasting the same warning template an absurd number of times and then repeatedly revert his attempts to delete them. I would note that, before the revert I found and warned you for, you were notified that Tommy has the right to delete material from the talk page, and that restoring it would not be an exception to 3RR.

The reasons I chose to use a strong harassment warning rather than any other type or severity were:

• I felt that the edits were egregious, in that there were too many warnings (a single warning would have been enough) and that there were too many reverts (especially the one after you were informed he was allowed to delete comments).
• WP:HARASS reads as follows:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

I felt it was fairly obvious that the reverts were targeted towards Tommy, and that the purpose was to make him feel intimidated and to discourage him from editing.

• I saw the seriousness of the issue and entered mastodon mode. That was no one's fault but my own.

I stand by my decision to warn you, SveinFalk, and Druryfire, based on the fact that you had in fact posted a lot of warnings and repeatedly reverted attempts to remove them. I did, however, fail to look deeply and objectively enough into the issue; otherwise I would've used less severe warnings and I would've also left a note on Tommy's talk page about policies on civility and content removal.

If anyone thinks I did something wrong that I still haven't acknowledged, please feel free to tell me. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I asked info-en@wikimedia.org what to do, and was told to add Level 3 warning(s) on his talk page. They said level 3 since he already had received level 1 and 2. I added them several times since his only reply was "rolling on the floor laughing" many times on various talk pages. Since he is still destroying articles (November 1), he now "qualifies" for level 4 vandalism warnings. These should be added by you, Richard Yin, or other editors, since you have threatened me with a ban if I add warnings again! If you and the other editors had actually looked at the case, instead of only supporting/defending Tommy1933, all of you would have seen who the problem is. It`s the kid from Indonesia! Not only did he remove whole referenced sections, as I have mentioned, but on at least one of these removals he also added that the section was "not needed"! Who is he to decide that a whole referenced section is "not needed" on Wikipedia? He has already destroyed what others has used years to build, and with all the help/support/defending from all other involved editors, he can continue his vandalism! Druryfire and me are the only ones who has tried to stop him, ending in threats from you and others. Good luck to you editing Wiki in the future, the part you don`t let Tommy1933 vandalise. SveinFalk (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@SveinFalk: I had (and still have) no problem whatsoever with you placing warnings on Tommy1933's talk page. I think that adding a warning, at that point, was a perfectly reasonable thing for you to do. What I objected to was adding a big stack of warnings, and then reverting a large number of times to keep them on the page. This was made rather worse by Druryfire using edit summaries like don't delete an ongoing investigation please, this just goes to show what your about (at no point has a stack of warning templates on a user's talk page ever constituted an investigation, especially an ongoing one, nor has removing a stack of warnings reflected on anyone's character). What, in my opinion, you should have done was:

• Put one (maybe two) level 3 warnings on Tommy's talk page
• Not revert when Tommy removed them, since that meant he'd read them
• If he did it again take him to ANI. I would do so without a level 4 warning (and probably without a level 3 warning) because the discussions here actually review conduct of editors involved besides just "Is <editor> vandalizing? Has <editor> received a level 4 warning? If so, block."

That being said, Tommy1933, some questions for you while I'm here:

• Why have you been removing as much unreferenced content as you have been instead of adding citations, especially when other editors have objected?
• In your post to my talk page here one of the pages you linked to was Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Have you in fact read the pages on the five pillars, especially the policy on civility? --Richard Yin (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Richard Yin, here you and all others can see all the shit Tommy1933 is doing. He is spamming/vandalising hundreds of articles by posting "non referenced" boxes in them. You can clearly see that he don`t read a single article, as he is spamming different articles every 1 or 2 minutes, and there is no way he has time to read, spam and change to different articles in that time. Sometimes he even spams different articles in the same minute. In addition, the articles are referenced in one way or another! Easy to see when you actually read them! I notice that hundreds of his "contributions" are marked [vandalism] in red. Has other editors reported him, or does it mean something else?

Richard Yin, since it looks like you know how to report this guy, and maybe get him banned/blocked, you should do all of us a favour by doing it the way you suggest. SveinFalk (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Richard Yin I don't spoil just add refimprove , citation needed etc , what is it vandalism ? I do not think so

I just followed the way wikipedia works. -- Tommy Syahputra (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SveinFalk you say "spamming/vandalising hundreds of articles by posting "non referenced" boxes in them." ?

you're wrong, I see it, I see that one source and etc. -- Tommy Syahputra (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Nukefirestadium

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

---

This relates to the old football stadium in Leipzig, primarily located at Zentralstadion (1956). Instead of starting move discussion(s), the above user is unilaterally creating content forks at new pages (Central Stadium (Leipzig, GDR)‎ and Central Stadium, Leipzig (1956-2000)). When these controversial pastes and redirects are reverted, the user is just constantly reverting despite repeated warnings. The user has also frequently removed discussion templates. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nukefirestadium has triggered a sockpuppet investigation already: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fox53. The behaviour of NFS looks very similar, including editwarring and conspiracy theories. The Banner talk 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • And blocked indef as sockpuppet, so this case can be closed. The Banner talk 18:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

72.49.36.201 - promotional spam in article text

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

IP promoting a book called "Threads of Faithfulness" along with some odd conspiracy theories:

• At Mothman [41] [42]
• At Silver Bridge [43] [44]

I've reverted twice and warned on the IPs Talk page but it may not stick. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Let us wait a bit, they did not edit after warning. Additionally, it is awlways a good practice to add the welcome template, may be they could read the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Denial of an RfC on proposed General Sanctions

• (diff) 10:13, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Turn the debate it into an RfC so that a broader consensus can be sought)
• (diff) 12:27, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (→‎Moving forward: I never put forth an RfC. Don't use my wording with an RfC.)
• (diff) PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• (diff) 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

From the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain

From the history of the page:

• 13:31, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

I don't believer that this section belongs to you! So under what right are you reverting edits made by me? If I create another section for an RfC, opinions will be split over two different sections. This is not fair on people who have already made their opinions clear, and needlessly complicates the RfC, but if you insist I will create a section below this one. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are adding an RfC template in conjunction with my words, in a way that would be misleading. It implies that I support this so-called "RfC". I have repeatedly said I do not. In fact, I believe that any opening of an RfC at this stage would be disruptive. No RfC is necessary. The only one that seems to think so is you, and furthermore, no other general sanctions ever were established by RfC. If you want to start an RfC, you should draft a proposal. Do not use my proposal for your RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester For someone who is seeking the consensus of the community to bring in some general sanctions, I find it extraordinary that you would not want to include as many people as possible in building that consensus and are trying to block an RfC on the issue!

The RfC does not in any way alter what you have said. It does not imply that you support the RfC, and that is not the issue. Your have twice removed an RfC what the RfC process says is "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." My emphasis. You are free to state under the RfC that you do not support the RfC if you so wish but you are not free to removed it for that reason.

If you will not let me place the RfC banner at the top of this section then I will create a new one at the bottom and I will use you proposed wording because that is for which you are seeking to gain consensus. As I have said it will be inconvenient for those who have already expressed an opinion in this straw poll and could easily lead to confusion, hence the reason I think it better to convert this section into a RfC. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it shows bad faith on your part. It singles my proposal out amongst all other general sanctions proposals, and puts a bureaucratic block in front of it. Not because of any particular policy or guideline, but because of one editor's opposition. You do not have a right to filibuster this proposal, nor do you have a right to unilaterally force bureaucratic measures on it. I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you. I will follow the established procedure for general sanctions proposals. I will not be made to jump through hoops at your behest. If you continue to disrupt this proposal, I will be forced to open a thread at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never been put in a situation before where an editor claims copyright on wording such the proposals for general sanctions to prevent an RfC being held on whether those general sanctions are acceptable to the wider Wikipedia community. But how else is one meant to understand I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you.

I think that the proposed general sanctions are badly drafted because the UK is not defined and potentially covers hundreds of thousands of articles. If one looks at list of general sanctions they are tightly focused on an issue or on a specific area, this proposal is neither. Therefore I think that a decision on whether to impose the sanctions should not be restricted to the dozen or so editors who have expressed an opinion so far.

Now that there is a definite draft I think it should be put to the community via a widely adversed RfC. User:RGloucester had twice reverted my attempts to start an RfC and seems to be determined to continue to do so. I think that this is unreasonable and I would like to see what the consensus is here at ANI is:

1. On whether the language highlighted in Green is reasonable
2. Whether it is desirable to hold an RfC on such a wide ranging (and I think badly drafted General Sanction)

-- PBS (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are an informal process, as it says at the RfC page. Such a process cannot be forced upon a proposal by one heavily-involved editor. You've expressed your objection to the proposal, as is your right. However, that does not overwrite the views of other editors who do support the proposal, and do think that the UK is adequately defined. Your one objection does not trigger an RfC, nor does it overwrite the standard procedure for establishing general sanctions, which is to start a discussion at WP:AN. There is no reason why this proposal is any different from any other general sanctions proposal. I will not take part in any farcical RfC requested at your behest. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I will not accept one editor's insertion of an RfC template before my words, without my consent. RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, I can't see any evidence of anyone 'claiming copyright' on anything. What I can however see is an out-of-sequence construction of a RfC around a comment made in another context. I'm not surprised that RGloucester objects to you misrepresenting his posting in this way. If you think an RfC is merited, start one in the appropriate manner, in your own words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the general sanctions proposal is to stop the bizarre disruption of UK related pages by advocates and opponents of the metric system of measurement in the UK. Both sides have often paralysed a series of articles, whilst converting backward and forward to / from their favoured measurement system. A clear consensus had formed at WT:MOSNUM there was a need for this, there was a clear consensus at WP:AN to enact it and now progress is being prevented by PBS in what I can only describe as filibustering. This wasn't an RFC, it was refactioring another editors comments - something that in normal circumstances could well lead to a block. It is a bizarre demand by any standards that you be allowed to refactor another editors post to become an RFC; so much so that I question whether PBS still has the WP:COMPETENCE to be an administrator.

1. Yes the proposal is reasonable and there was no need to forum shop it elsewhere.
2. No, I don't see a need for an RFC on the proposal. WCM_email 17:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump If the statement "I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours." is claim of copyright, then what it it?

@Wee Curry Monsternon one is proposing to "forum shop it elsewhere". I did not redactor anyone's comments indeed if anyone refactored anyone's comments it is User:RGloucester for removing text -- but given the circumstances that is not a question that needs addressing. The question that needs addressing is does one editor have the right under the relevant policies and guidelines to prevent another editor starting an RfC with claims of ownership over both a process and text that that editor states they own? -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere with this "line of questioning", I can assure you that. This is starting to look like pure badgering. RGloucester — ☎ 12:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to push this forward to some sort of conclusion, and again we're going down a side issue Doesn't "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." that appears under every edit window have relevance here?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Havin been party to the GS discussion, I found it decidedly odd that PBS would unilaterally try to wrap an existing discussion into an RFC. As Andy says, PBS, just start a new RFC. RGloucester has stated their objection to your use of their words in the way you wish. You may have the legal right to edit any text on wiki but wrapping RG's words into your RFC when he's indicated his opposition would be ethically wrong.Blackmane (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I think someone uninvolved might consider closing this and the AN discussion possibly as well, if he finds consensus has been reached.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

64.183.48.206 A repeat offender

I have been in an unfortunate editing war with this user on two articles. The user insists on adding unsourced material to these articles.

The particular pages on which I am having a problem with this user are:

1. Marrakesh Express (The user keeps adding the unsourced line "On the album version, there is a few seconds of Nash whispering in Arabic gibberish before the music starts." Besides the trivial nature of the insertion, sources indicate a different person doing the gibberish. The user has been encouraged to provide a source, but has not done so.)

2. Our House (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song). (The user keeps adding "Joni Mitchell had two cats roaming around in her back yard that she owned, which became the basis of the lyric line in the Chorus of the song: "With two cats in the yard"." Again, I encouraged providing a source, but he/she has not done so.)

Looking through the user's talk pages, this person has been warned about this behavior in the past and was temporarily blocked a year ago. Also, there is apparently a current complaint about the user's persistent edit wars on that administrator page.

I posted to the user's talk page. The only response I got was for him/her to go back and add the same unsourced edits.

In my opinion, this person should be banned from Wikipedia. He/she obviously has no regard for the integrity of the system. A quick look through the talk page demonstrates this.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading the policies, it seems that I have been guilty of an edit war with this user in that I have reverted his edits three times within 24 hours. I did not know that rule before. I apologize for this and will not do so in the future. When I run across an abusive editor, I will report it instead, as I am doing here.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick search of Google indicates that Graham Nash and Joni Mitchell were indeed a couple living together, and that she indeed had cats. Shouldn't be too hard to source properly. Don't know about the whispering, though I think I've heard that story before. The whispering might be obvious, but a proper source would be needed to confirm who it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that line about the cats, that was some bad writing; I can't blame you for taking it out. Whether you have to do so five times is an open question, but the content was unverified, of course. It is no longer unverified. Is it trivial? Well, it's a detail from a song, a nice little song that millions of people love (including yours truly), and one could argue it adds real-life texture to it. It is no more or less importance than the vase or the fire--but now it's verified. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• There's a Bambifan template on the IP talk page. Is that credible? Drmies (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, everyone.

The reason I say that the line about cats is trivial is that the song is not ambiguous. It's not like the line really needs interpretation. The vase is not something that an editor has added; it's just a quote from the author about how the song came to be.

Sources say that David Crosby whispered the gibberish. So in this case, it really needs a credible source.

My reasons for wanting this user banned is not just the personal annoyance that I have with him/her. Look at the talk page. He/she does this kind of stuff all the time. It is a serial problem.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some constructive edits from this IP, but the repetitive assertion of original research without engagement with the rest of the community does seem to be a problem [45] Willondon (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a possibility that this user is posting under more than one name. 107.220.86.220 has been posting much of the same stuff to many of the same articles. He/she has likewise been warned about unsourced edits.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Flaawless

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

---

Flaawless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could someone please take a look, this seems to be a vandalism-only account, adding weird content to multiple articles. I don't see much point in a notification or warning, they seem to know they're acting up. Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it might be a compromised account, or somebody having a weird breakdown. Anyway, a number of recent edits need to be rolled back. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably the latter. Looking through the contributions, I think this individual was promoting himself (assuming "Regardless Devon Victory" is a male editor's pseudonym). When his article(s?) were deleted he started vandalizing other articles. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Mike V--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User: NazariyKaminski -- Disruptive behavior and edit warring over multiple articles

User being reported: NazariyKaminski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please take a look at this user's behavior. After quickly removing a section tag from a BLP [46] and then copying and pasting his edit warring warning to my talk page [47] I soon realized I needed to take further action. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I just filed a 3RR report on NazariyKaminski before noticing this. He's an editor who has been blocked 4 times this year (3 for edit-warring and one for harassment/personal attacks). The most recent edit-warring block was a month long, but he jumped right back in once it expired with more edit-warring. His contribution history consists of solely of relentlessly tendentious, combative, hyperpartisan edit-warring and invective. If there is a clearer example of someone unsuited to retain editing privileges on this site, it's been awhile since I've seen one. At this point, there's ample evidence that NazariyKaminski's behavior is not going to change and he's not going to suddenly start respecting our conduct policies, so we should probably not put him in a position to waste any more of other editors' time. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Look let's cut to the chase. Somedifferentstuff placed a BLP tag on the article in retaliation for edits that I was making that he did not like. Now, before you go blocking me please note that I have been attempting to work with Cwobeel to come to a compromise. All of the discussion right there in the notes of the talk page. There is a disagreement on what is a primary source and what is a secondary source. I believe that the Federal Election Commission filings are primary and OpenSecrets.org is a secondary source. They claim that OpenSecrets.org is a primary source. However, OpenSecrets.org is a private entity owned and operated by Center for Responsive Politics. It is not a government agency and the information that they have is not original but merely information that is filed with the FEC in the first place. Now, when the admin goes through and counts the number of edits and reverts and all of the rest then you will see that all three of us, Cwobeel, Somedifferentstuff, and myself ALL violated 3RR. This is fact. Now, I am more than willing to take my block, but it needs to be applied fairly which means that the two editors who were reverting me, Cwobeel and Somedifferentstuff, need to be blocked also. I believe the rule is "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", right? Now, Greg Orman has given campaign money to Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, that can't be disputed because it is right there in the FEC files and it is reported in the secondary source OpenSecrets.org. Also, the Kansas City Star and Roll Call also report that Orman has given to Reid and Clinton so that fact is not in dispute. So go ahead and block me but you need to block those folks also. Oh, by the way, Cwobeel went out and talked Somedifferentstuff into making his way over to Orman to support Cwobeel's position. Somedifferentstuff has written this note as if he is an innocent child, but he was engaging in the edit war also. Actually, Cwobeel and myself were making tons of progress toward a compromise until Somedifferentstuff got involved in a big way and decided to inappropriately tag the article "BLP" when there was not "BLP" issue. There were clearly other issues that needed to be worked on but not BLP. Also, Somedifferentstuff was removing material that Cwobeel and myself agreed belong in the article. So there you have it. Remember it takes two (in this case three) to tango. You can't have an edit war without two sides reverting each other. Each of them reverted as often as I did. But as I said this went on most of the day. It was just Cwobeel and myself until Somedifferentstuff decided to get involved. Its too bad because we were getting to a compromise.--NK (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not a completely uninvolved editor, as I've also been involved in some of the related talk page discussions. However, the issue raised does pose a broader issue that comes up in regards to polarizing articles. There is nothing wrong with holding your own political views, and if we're being realistic we have to expect that editors' views will impact the changes they oppose or support in controversial articles. However, there comes a point in which, if an editors sole purpose is to push towards one POV and against another, even if this is done through actions that are individually not problematic (such as asking for additional verification, arguing about the reliability of sources, or arguing about the relative of significance of specific points) we can include that they are NOT here to build an encyclopedia. My general test for this is to look at the last 1000 edits for an editor. If these are entirely concerned with pushing or pulling on the POV of a specific event in one direction, even if done under the claims of encouraging neutrality, then I don't believe the user is a benefit to the encyclopedia. The user in question's past contributions seem to indicate this is the case in regards to current American political elections.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd note, however that the user posting this incident is also not perfect in this regard, with a strong focus on POV in political issues. However, applying the same standard to his or her edits does indicate a much wider variety of articles edited, to the point where I wouldn't say they are only here for one sole purpose.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply put - we should lock down political BLPs during "silly season." Else we get folks who seem to wish just to remove those with differing views from what is supposed to be a collegial editing atmosphere. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for UrbanVillager

Based on this discussion, I'd like to propose a topic ban for User:UrbanVillager on all Boris Malagurski-related articles. The editor is largely a huge SPA who only promotes the filmmaker Malagurski. Beyond edit warring, there has been a recent rise in attacks via complaints to ANI (and now SPI complaints). See Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains#Pincrete_behaving_like_he.2Fshe_owns_this_page for further conduct since the last ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. After the earlier ANI report, I watchlisted a few Malagurski-related articles to keep up with what was going on and, hopefully, offer a neutral opinion on what I expected to be the occasional content dispute. I quickly removed them all, as I couldn't handle the endless drama and pointless edit wars. In the above-linked talk page discussion, UrbanVillager threatens to disrupt the article to make a point. I think it's time to say "enough is enough". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional information

As a party to both recent ANI's, it would not be right for me to offer an opinion, however I offer the following additional information. These diffs show the edit history of UrbanVillager: … … Global[48] … … Commons [49] … … German [50] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [51] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [52] … … Italian [53] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [54] nb complaints about block [55]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [56] … … Romanian [57] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [58] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [59] … … Serbian [60] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … … nb additionally, Hr(Croatian) 17 edits Don't show … 4 French edits which don't show … Bs (Bosnian) 1 doesn't show … Arabic there are 2 which I don't understand.

In every instance, the Weight of Chains article differs little from the 'about' page of the Malagurski website or press pack, as was the case with the English WofC page until very recently. Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [61]. WP is being used internationally as little more than a shop window for an otherwise obscure and highly politically contentious film maker. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reponse

So, a ban on a topic because I'm interested in it? Well, alright, makes sense. However, Pincrete and some other editors have openly said that they despise Malagurski and his work, openly allowing their POV to affect their editing on Wikipedia, but nobody cares about that because they edit other articles as well, while it's apparently punishable to edit only one topic area on Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, twice, of being paid by him, being his friend or whatever, when in essence, all I'd really like is to contribute to the area of interest, presenting well-sourced material, regardless of whether it's positive or negative towards Malagurski and his films (for those who have the time or interest to look into it, they'll notice I myself put forward sources that were critical towards Malagurski, so this notion that I "promote the filmmaker Malagurski" is pure nonsense.

Basically, a couple of editors who despise Malagurski and his work (and have openly said that) flared up the topic area by manipulating editors who don't have the time to look into the issue deeper and presenting me as Malagurski, on his payroll or whatever, saying that I must be removed so that they can continue editing the article in a way that makes Malagurski look as bad as possible. I hope that this won't happen, but everything Pincrete and some other editors have done to Malagurski-related articles had the goal of making Malagurski look bad, while everything I've done is to contribute to the neutrality of the article, not really wanting to make Malagurski look good or bad, but so simply present what he does and what other sources write about him and his work. That's all. I follow his work and if it's a punishable offence to edit articles that interest me and discuss them on the article talk pages, sure, ban me. It's easier to ban one person and let the others do what they want to the article, as they've attempted before through canvassing, so I understand it's the easy way out. I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing Malagurski-related articles and I think I made an honest contribution. If a ban is my prize, so be it, though I'm still proud of defending neutrality on Wikipedia, despite some editors manipulating the system to get rid of me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests#Requested move

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

---

I don't know what to do with Signedzzz. I'm accused of doing personal attacks, yet "zzz" told me not to come back there and requests that another editor be topic-banned. --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you just drop the silly "I don't know what to do with" attitude? On the thread in question, your first comment started with "You have rebutted people who opposed. I'll try to rebut you" when the editor in question hadn't rebutted anyone (except you). Then your next comment starts with "Are you directly related to protesters?" (A purely ad hominem argument) And a little further down, after throwing in a pointless and tacky mention of the Nazi Party, it's "How much do you know Hong Kong culture? Not every English-speaking readers know stuff about Hong Kong", directed at me. All of this on a "requested move" thread, under a box which clearly states "Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil." So, as you mentioned, I directed you to look up the meaning of 'ad hominem' - which apparently you have failed to do, despite the link I provided. And I will be filing a request for User:STSC to be topic-banned if his POV-pushing continues, unless of course there's some good explanation for, eg this edit (which I have pointed out, and received no response) where he downgrades both of the Wikiprojects China and Politics from "High importance" to "Low importance" - I haven't filed the complaint yet, because I have better things to do right now, than collect a load of diffs, (and I'm hoping he just steers clear of the article, as he has largely been doing - except for deliberately disrupting the move request just now, and opening an apparently spurious RfC). zzz (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester had; see Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 2#RM (October 2014). --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And, in any case, you have apparently misinterpreted my "please don't later try to come back and comment as the 'voice of reason'" comment, which was referring only to the (already finished) thread. zzz (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It still was unfunny and confusing, but that's my opinion. If you don't want to amend your comments there, that's fine. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you for the way the discussion went, it was doomed anyway. I just felt the objections you had raised were a little off-topic. I certainly wasn't trying to be funny, that's not one of my strengths. zzz (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho, I don't honestly want to amend my comment, but I would agree with deleting it. I was just annoyed with STSC's obligatory trolling, at the time, that's all. zzz (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Now that the comment is deleted (well, it would have been struck out, but deleting is fine as well), perhaps tell me other examples of personal attacks, so I can do something about my comments. Meanwhile, you and STSC can resolve yourselves on your own. --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the user enjoys his trolling too much to stop - ask user:Citobun. You criticised the nominator for COI, after he'd bothered to write a long paragraph in response to your objection. A more detailed response was called for (or none at all), imho. Then you suggested I don't know about the subject as an English-speaker. This missed the point that what I was saying was based on sources in the article. I had mentioned this in a slightly obscure way, in a previous comment, and I can now see that you had possibly missed that, and so you thought I was being speculative. I'm glad I've worked out what happened there, (if that's right, of course) - I hope that's cleared up, now! :)zzz (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The user probably lives in HK. He was probably oblivious about the previous RM a month ago, yet he started a re-proposal. RGloucester convinced me adequately with examples; the other guy accused me of being narrow. His tone sounds like an activist to me, but I'm unsure of whether he is one. About what I said to you, "How much do you know Hong Kong culture? Not every English-speaking readers know stuff about Hong Kong. Even when I know Hong Kong celebrities (I'm Chinese), I still am oblivious about Hong Kong a lot. I've never been there, so how is denying themselves as "Revolution" just "being polite"?", I'm sure that it was a misinterpretation. I'll amend by adding underlined content, okay? --George Ho (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what, he did accuse you, after all. And there's several ways I could have misinterpreted what you said, that you've quoted there. Underlining would help, cheers. zzz (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I see what you were saying! I got that wrong, then. zzz (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring and BLP-violations from user Muhib mansour

Muhib mansour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding BLP-violating categories to articles not by using reliable sources but by watching videos where actors have played gay parts and drawing his own conclusions about the real-life sexual orientation of the actors. He has given the following reply to MusikAnimal's warning about adding unsourced information to a BLP article: "ok watch this video [video link provided in diff] and from his face you will know he is faggot".

He also left this message to Tiller54: "why you delete this categories of [Actor's name on diff] ? she lesbian ,watch last film blue is warmest color". Mansour has also taken to edit-warring on the BLP of Adèle Exarchopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adding unsourced BLP-violating categories, no doubt from watching one of her films. He also applies pressure to the editors who revert his unsourced additions declaring that he will revert them.

I think this user's casual approach and insults in any context, but especially regarding BLP violations, is something that has no place in an encyclopedia. I also find his edit-warring and approach to other editors to be highly problematic, especially when combined with his interpretation of watching films and drawing his own conclusions, as being equivalent to BLP-compliant sources. I leave the type of admin action that may be deemed necessary up to the admin corps. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Quick block for 31 hours for BLP violations. I had a look at some other edits to see if they did anything positive at all; it seems that they have. That comment you cite, Dr.K., is bad enough to suggest an indef block, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd rather have another admin look at this. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Drmies. I fully agree with your action and evaluation of the incident. Your block message on Mansour's talkpage was also very clear and covered the issues involved very well. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• I took a quick look, Drmies. With considerable difficulty, I'm able to believe that this is a very naive person who hasn't a clue about what's required for decent sourcing, whose English is poor, and who has innocently mixed up "faggot" (pejorative) and "gay" (not). I think that 31 hours should be enough for him to understand both the connotations of the words he likes to use and the need for reliable sourcing. So I wouldn't extend the block. But if he continues when he returns, I'd skip the usual time-wasting warnings and gradually increasing blocks, but instead block him indefinitely as incompetent at best. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well-made points. My only concern is that, based on his editing pattern, he may come back to editing after his block expires, because his edits are usually two to three days apart, with the latest break being an 11-day one. Let's hope, given his apparently weak communication skills, he understands that he was actually blocked while he was absent and what that means. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Trolling

Look at this, and this. Can we get someone (a Commons admin?) to put this image on a blacklist or something like that? Drmies (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What you need to do is add it to the MediaWiki:Bad image list. Any admin can do this. I did one myself, long ago :) -- Diannaa (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Diannaa! Drmies (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Aslamthelion

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

---

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

Aslamthelion has made some good-faith edits to articles relating to Jack the Ripper, but tag bombed the Evolution article, added unsourced Intelligent Design commentary to it, and generally expressed the view that the article should give equal validity to other "theories." When Wikipedia's stance on evolution was explained to him, he added a photo of a monkey to his userpage with the caption "a portrait of your average evolutionist" and vandalized the article Cow tipping.

He then added clear POV-pushing (bordering on vandalism) to Rape Culture, and posted a question to the article's talk page that indicates either competence-hindering bigotry (if assuming good faith) or that he is a troll (if we assume that he is a rational being).

A glance at his user talk page shows that I have politely explained a number of relevant guidelines, and that multiple editors have also explained Wikipedia's RS-based stance on evolution. We've not told him to change his beliefs, merely understand that the site will not serve as a platform for them. His response was to not respond. That is, until an IP asked questions regarding Wikipedia's stance on evolution, and I answered them by pointing to the relevant guidelines and explaining the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory. Then, Aslamthelion said "IanThompson is lying (something you should expect from the laity of the evolution church)".

Today, he posted again to Talk:Evolution, trying to argue that we should change the article because he found a video that claims that Anton Mesmer was chosen by Satan to make hypnotism popular to gain control of people's minds, somehow allowing Satan to personally tutor Charles Darwin at the behest of some big evil Council. The claims were made by Roger Morneau, who are article unfairly portrays as sane. Before anyone says "BLP," Morneau's been dead for several years. Aslamthelion did not indicate any doubts or disagreement with the video. At a minimum, he needs to be topic banned from any article relating to evolution. A broader topic ban from articles relating to biology or women's rights might be more appropriate.

Again, his edits to articles relating to Jack the Ripper initially appear fine (if giving undue weight to Phillip Sugden). But if it weren't for those, I'm convinced he'd've been indefinitely blocked as a troll long by now. Topic banning from non-Ripper topics might be useful, since he's demonstrated little good-faith or rationality outside of those pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Been following this account for a few days... vandalism on rape culture, edit warring, personal attacks on Talk:Evolution... user is WP:NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that too, but his edits to Ripper articles are just enough that I'm willing to let him go on his way if he avoids articles relating to biology and women's rights and promises to start cooperating with and assuming good faith other editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian.Thompson, I will stay away from the biology and women's rights articles if I am annoying others. I have no particular interest in them.--Aslamthelion (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And yet you repeatedly demonstrate a marked inability to stay away from these sorts of articles, where you take an apparent great interest in vandalizing them, using them as soapboxes from which to rant about inane and evidence-free conspiracy theories, and attacking other editors who disagree with you. We've given you a lot of rope already.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"And yet you repeatedly demonstrate a marked inability to stay away from these sorts of articles"

I was never told to stay away from them.--Aslamthelion (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You were told not use talkpages as soapboxes before you made this post using the page to make the very sort of arguments you were told would not fly. And really, should you need to be told to not vandalize articles? How is that not common sense? I'm not going to press for a block (although I will definitely condone one), but really, how can you possibly pretend that your behavior outside of the Ripper articles was anything but pointless and immature? The non-Ripper edits were obviously of no benefit to the site (quite the opposite), so why do them at all? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User is clearly not here to create an encyclopedia. At the very least a topic ban to anything other than Jack the Rpper articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I've just followed the trail of edits by Aslamthelion. This is undoubtedly a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. After all of this argumentative, WP:DE, to add "I was never told to stay away from them." is just WP:CHEESE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, you don't help yourself in building a case against someone by linking to a humor page.--Aslamthelion (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been monitoring him as well following his initial nonconstructive/disruptive edits and reverting him if no one else has. Despite his questionably useful edits, I feel this is the type of person who cannot be trusted on Wikipedia. His attitude alone demonstrates this. I would favor a full ban... a topic ban at a minimum. – Maky ^« talk » 06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Block - I see enough here for a block, and suggest it be a substantial one to prevent further vandalistic and tendentious edits. In my view an admin should move promptly. Jusdafax 06:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block - The user's editing history, deliberate refusal to converse with other editors beyond ignoring and attacking them, and blatant dishonesty easily demonstrate WP:NOTHERE.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block He is a newbie, he has just agreed to a topic ban in principle and he is not doing more harm than good. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - He's only been here 9 days so we shouldn't Bite the newbies, Topic ban should suffice. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per EvergreenFir below - Clearly as this edit demonstrates he isn't here to build an encyclopedia! & we can only provide so much rope!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Block - ...as stated above. I've dealt with my share of newbies, and I've seen a gamut behavior and responses, both appropriate and inappropriate (on both sides). This "newbie" (assuming he really is) has received numerous warnings (all in a civil tone), yet he does not heed them and responds to other users only through indirect, broad insults and vandalism. I can not see him maturing into an unbiased, civil editor. – Maky ^« talk » 16:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and SqueakBox: Yet they make this edit after commenting on this ANI 3 times... user is NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block - See my comments above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support block, book case of WP:NOTHERE. Cavarrone 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:TheAirplaneGuy

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

---

This user is falsely accusing me of vandalism at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014 and keeps re-inserting the vandalism warning to my talk page no matter how many times I tell him to stay off it. I was not vandalizing the page. I removed Cygnus CRS Orb-3 from the list because it was a rocket launch, which is spaceflight not aviation. This user immediately assumed it was vandalism which is in bad faith. TL565 (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked TheAirplaneGuy for 48 hours for edit warring at the template and TL565's talk page. Moreover I have left him a note about what actually constitutes vandalism and behaviour at other editors' talk pages. This was certainly not acceptable. De728631 (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I just found that he has also been using profanity in his warnings such as here. TL565 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems a bit OTT for something so minor. Either rocket launches are included on the template or they aren't (I don't know the guideline on this). Whichever it is, do the right thing and include/exclude it and both parties move on. Who does the 48hr block benefit? Certainly not the project, that's for sure. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought at least TL565 would benefit from such a block so his user talk page would no longer be disrupted. I'd also like to note that TheAirplaneGuy has been blocked for edit warring before so he should have known better. De728631 (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Right, I don't want to flog a deadhorse here, but TAG has seen the error of his ways and has requested an unblock. That was five and a half hours ago. I guess it's easier to hit the block button than to consider the response from a valued contributor who is only here to ultimately do good. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't even informed about this. TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That notice was left to TAG when TL565 started this discussion, so what's wrong with it? De728631 (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

TheAirplaneGuy stated that he wasn't informed of this discussion. Demiurge was just pointing out that he was informed of the discussion. GB fan 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, right. Note to self: must train reading comprehension. De728631 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk page moved to an attack title

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

---

• Woody72691 (talk · contribs)
• User talk:Dirtlawyer1 has been moved to User talk:Mr. Assole

I could move the page back, but an admin should do it and delete the attack title. I don't know what the underlying problem is—that can be checked after the page move is fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved back, and blocked the offender. Chillum 08:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

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

misuse of userpage for self-promotion?

Abhimanyu Sheoran

New user Abhimanyu Sheoran (talk · contribs), who has only edits to his userpage, seems to misuse Wikipedia for self-promotion via his userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually he's not so new since he made his first edit in 2012. But he's clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the nature of the content (contact information, etc.), this probably falls under the purview of WP:USERBIO and probably could be deleted as WP:CSD#U5. I agree that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE, though. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, for a start I've tagged the page as {{db-u5}} (which was promptly enacted by RHaworth). De728631 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Anish Raj Prajapat

There is also Anish Raj Prajapat (talk · contribs · logs) who is in fact a fairly new editor but has done nothing but to edit his own user page. Moreover it looks like an unattributed text from some Wiki and might therefore be a copyright infringement. De728631 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Simplest approach to things like this (of which there are many) is just to take them to MfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this user has copied the same content in locations where it doesn't belong, such as here, I would say a disruptive editing and/or self-promotion only account block is in order. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And FreeRangeFrog has now deleted that page per CSD U5. I support blocking the account. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As this user has recreated the WP:FAKEARTICLE as his user page, I have blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE, since I don't think he is here to contribute. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dozens of drafts copypasted into article space

A new editor has created over two dozen articles in the last 3 days by copypasting the contents of drafts created by other editors either in draft space or user space: Four examples:

• User:Prozac34/Zulueta Championship pasted to Zulueta Championship
• Draft:David Patrick Coonan pasted to David Patrick Coonan
• Draft:Piero Heliczer pasted to Piero Heliczer
• Draft:Trimax Mowing Systems pasted to Trimax Mowing Systems

I've asked them stop and explained why, and they appear to have done this for now, although they have not engaged in discussion. However, what do we do with the articles already created? First of all, the histories all require attribution or history merging to credit the actual authors if they are viable articles. Secondly, many of these drafts are simply that, work in progress, and not suitable for article space yet. Many of them have already been tagged for problems—notability and referencing concerns, copyvio from external sites, etc. Some of them are very promotional.

The editor's talk page is also full of copyvio notices which suggests that many of these pasted drafts had potential copyvio problems themselves, but when these have been tagged in article space by CorenSearchBot, the editor simply removes the tag [62] as at Christian Lillinger pasted from Draft:Christian Lillinger. Voceditenore (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

They probably need to be decided on case-by-case basis. For example, in your first example, I thing the article qualifies for speedy deletion as an unambigous copyright violation, and the draft should stay where it is and wait for a review. If there are more than a dozen articles affected, probably a copyright investigation page should be created.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, one can decide on a case-by-case basic whether they contain copyvio from external sites, but for all of them the attribution problem remains. The original authors must be credited. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If the originals are still in drafts/user space, surely just delete all the copy-pasted articles? Neatsfoot (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Copy-pasting without attribution is still a copyright violation, though in many cases it can be resolved without deleting an article. But if the draft is not yet ready to be moved, I think its copy in the main space needs to be deleted (assuming it has not been substantially edited).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Gomsi looks like the only one with any substantial editing - all the rest appear to have only minor additional edits or none at all. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It is quite inappropriate to copy paste a draft initiated by a different editor into main space. If not attributed properly, it is a copvio, but even if attributed properly, it is exceedingly rude. If we do not have a rule against it we should (with a caveat for abandoned drafts which may meet our standards.)

The ones I looked at were copy pasted, rather than moved, so I think the best course is to delete them all, and make sure the editor understands why this is not the way we do things. I see an attempt to contact the editor has occurred, but no response as of yet. Is there any reason we should not delete them all?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I deleted Christian Lillinger as a copyvio, not the technical copy of the draft, but the close paraphrase of this site. For the same reason, I deleted the draft.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• I did not find an underlying draft of Gomsi.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think all the ones with an underlying draft should simply be speedy deleted, e.g. Abhutaparikalpa and Karakamsa. However the rest do need checking. Newlai Tingkhatra appears not to have an underlyng draft but is virtually verbatim from http://www.echoofarunachal.com/?p=45590. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• It looks like the original version of Gomsi was copied from here (judging by Hhhippo's edit summary), so all bar the latest version are copyvios. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted:

• Wohldenberg Castle
• Newlai Tingkhatra
• Zulueta Championship
• David Patrick Coonan
• Vibodha
• Vincent Mai

• Township (playrix)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

For the ones listed above, I checked to make sure there was an underlying draft used as a source. I think the pattern is clear, and I am presumptively deleting the rest (except Gomsi, not seeing the problem)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The only problem at Gomsi is that all revisions prior to the current one are copyright violations and should be revision-deleted, I think. Neatsfoot (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick and Ymblanter, thanks so much for sorting this out. There's just this last one to mop up, American Standards pasted from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Standards. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted that one as well, thanks for spotting the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked User:MacCreator as an obvious sock of User:Donyi Taga. The sad thing is that Donyi Taga rather obviously wants to help, but unfortunately does not at all understand how to do so, or how not to do so. Huon (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Strong personal attacks at user page.

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

---

New user ENT 70, a single purpose account [63] has taken pictures uploaded by other users and use them in a highly insulting way. Two different users have uploaded images of the Christian cross of ashes [64] [65] and ENT 70 have used these pictures to claim it's the "Mark of the beast". Most of all, it's highly offensive to the individuals in the pictures in particular (one of them is named) and to the authors of the images. It's of course bad taste towards Christians as well, but it's the personal attacks on these individual to claim they are marked by "the beast" that concerns me the most. Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

just want to point out that calling an atrack on a religion racist is somewhat nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that and you're probably right, so I changed it. Had it only been that, I would not have bothered. It's the fact of taking someone else's pictures, using individuals who have agreed to appear on imagine in Wikipedia, and to call them marked by the devil that is the problem.Jeppiz (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No argument there. Blackmane (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely sure I did it right but I slapped a CSD db-attack tag on the user page.Blackmane (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Could probably do with a quick block to stop them removing the WP:SPEEDY tags as well if someone could be so kind. Amortias (T)(C) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really! Do you call criticizing Christianity racism?! then what do you call criticizing Islam?! a freedom of speech?!!--ENT 70 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources to back up the claims you are making and present them in a neutral manner then there shouldnt be any problem. The methods and manner you are using to include information however doesnt meet these criteria. If you can present the statements you ahve previously made while still meeting the criteria above then there shouldnt be an issue . Amortias (T)(C) 15:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've deleted the userpage, we don't want that stuff just one click away. Looking at the user's contributions, I see several other problems, especially the two edits to Muhammad, but also the tendentious arguing on Talk:Muhammad. The user seems to have a strong religious point of view, which people are welcome to have, but articles aren't supposed to be written from it. I have put a little advice on their page, including a recommendation that they respond here. (Added after ec:) Oh, yes, I see they have commented. Not very responsively, though. ENT 70, please consider what I wrote on your page. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

What is wrong with my two edits to Muhammad in Islam?! There is nothing wrong with them. I added the "honorific-prefix" of "Muhammad in Islam" just as others added the "honorific-prefix" of Paul in Christianity. Check the article of Paul here. The "honorific-prefix" of Paul in Christianity like "Apostle of the Gentiles" & "Saint Paul" are mentioned in the info-box, then why can't I mention the "honorific-prefix" of "Muhammad in Islam"?--ENT 70 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And what is wrong with my discussion on Talk:Muhammad? There is nothing wrong with it. It's not me who is pushing anti-religious propaganda there.--ENT 70 (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Had Bishonen not taken the lead, I probably would have already blocked you for WP:NOTHERE and due to what seems an inability to listen to others and learn how our sourcing works. And yes, that user page needed deleting, thank you Bish. Dennis - 2¢ 15:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's not me who is pushing anti-religious propaganda." No, indeed you're not, you're pushing religious propaganda. I see your attrition by not listening to what anybody says continues unabated at Talk:Muhammad. We're all reluctant to block new editors, but I've blocked ENT 70 indefinitely for wasting editors' time and for rejecting all information and advice about how the site works. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

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

Serious POV Problem

There is a very serious POV problem on António de Oliveira Salazar which makes quite ridiculous claims and is biased. The opening is entirely pro-Salazar except for one sentence. I attempted to fix it like taking out such obvious POV claims like Portugal was a "civilizing force" to Angola and Mozambique and that Salazar died a "poor man after forty years of public service" (if that isn't POV, then I don't know what is!)

The biggest problem: "Even the communist historian, António José Saraiva, a lifelong opponent of Salazar, recognizes" before it goes on about how amazing Salazar was and how everybody should look up to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robitski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to the introduction, where I added views of the other side of the story backed up by sources; this was removed by another user, indeed restored to the original text which cast Salazar in a favorable light.

I did not try to counter the POV with another, but rather was just showing views from the other side of the story - yet this could not be tolerated by some teary-eyed colonialist who removed what is, quite frankly, a collection of facts.

Could somebody please have a word with this person and enforce new edits which try to balance the article, or possibly even put a neutrality issue notification? Quite frankly I can see the article as being offensive to the thousands of people who were tortured by the regime for trying to form a trade union or speaking out against corruption and to the families of those who were brutally murdered in the Portuguese Colonial War which was continued way past a reasonable amount by Salazar.

Please could an admin do something about his? Robitski (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen is quite correct. If you can't understand that a Communist is definitely from the other side of the story, please read up on Communism. If you object to the statement about Portugal being a source of civilisation etc., please read it again: the statement says that this was one of Salazar's goals, without claiming that this goal was or was not fulfilled. Salazar lived a life of simplicity, dying as a poor man after 40 years of public service. "Public service" is generally a neutral term, used of officeholders regardless of whether they really did help the public; if it were solely a positive statement, its application would never be appropriate in Wikipedia. Do you dispute the idea that he lived a simple life or that he died poor? As far as I can see, you didn't make any edits to the article that produce factual evidence disputing these concepts. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen restored unsourced controversial statements while claiming in the edit summary that they were sourced. An editor objected to the unsourced POV about the civilizing force and appropriately removed it. Why did Rjensen restore it? Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is biased, end-of. It does not bring light to the other side of the story. It just doesn't. It does not talk about the secret police, how Salazar crushed work unions or criticize what parts of society really benefited from his rule. I think some translation from the Portuguese wiki might be in order which appears to have a more balanced view. Instead of blowing him up to look like something, the article on the Portuguese wiki simply gives the facts, minus the praise:

(Rough translation)

"António de Oliveira Salazar, Oliveira Salazar or Salazar GCTE • GCSE • GColIH • GCIC HAS (Santa Comba Dão, Vimieiro, April 28, 1889 — Lisbon, July 27, 1970) was a Portuguese nationalist statesman who, in addition to lead various ministries, was Chairman of the Council of Ministers and professor of political economy, science of finance and Social Economy at the University of Coimbra. 1

His career in the Portuguese State began when he was chosen by the military to Finance Minister for a short period of two weeks, in the wake of the revolution of May 28, 1926. Was replaced by Commander Filomeno da Câmara de Melo Cabral after the coup of general Gomes da Costa. Subsequently, he was also Finance Minister between 1928 and 1932, by Portuguese public finances. 2

Prominent figure and promoter of the Estado Novo (1933-1974) and his political organization, the National Union, Salazar directed the destinies of Portugal as President of the dictatorial way Ministry between 1932 and 1933 and, as Chairman of the Council of Ministers between 1933 and 1968. The autoritarismos and nationalism that arose in Europe were a source of inspiration for Salazar on two fronts: the complementary of propaganda and repression. With the establishment of censorship, the organisation of leisure time for workers and the Portuguese Youth FNAT the Estado Novo sought to ensure the indoctrination of wide masses of Portuguese population in the style of fascism, while its political police (PVDE subsequently PIDE and later still DGS), in conjunction with the Portuguese Legion, fighting opponents of the regime that were tried in special courts (Special Military Courts andSubsequently, Plenary Courts).

Inspired by fascism and relying on the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, Salazar has to a State corporatism, with an economic nationalist course of action based on the ideal of autarky and pursued science. 3 That his economic nationalism led him to take measures of protectionism and isolationism of a fiscal nature, customs tariff, for Portugal and its colonies, which had large positive and negative impacts throughout the period in which he served."

See the difference? No "Salazar was the best" or quotes from various people describing how good he is. It just says, there and there, what he did. Robitski (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

With a prominent person such as Salazar, we absolutely need to include major historians' perspectives on him in the intro: it's a huge chunk of his legacy. Meanwhile, we are not the Portuguese Wikipedia nor vice versa; perhaps they have different standards and/or common practices from ours. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to give historian's perspectives, then balance it. All I see there are praise quotes except for one. That's ridiculously biased. Nothing is mentioned about Salazar's treatment of dissidents - ever heard of Tarrafal Camp? Ever heard of Salazar's treatment of work unions? For the working class life was hell and this is why a mass migration of Portuguese people occurred during the Estado Novo regime; that is the main reason why Portuguese diaspora is so prominent today.

The article is obviously putting Salazar in a favourable light. And that goes against Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter what you think is the truth, because the truth is different for different people. The article is completely displaying one side of the issue and it's totally unfair. Just because YOU believe Salazar was a saint doesn't mean he was for everybody else.

The Portuguese article gives an excellently unbiased view of the subject. Wikipedia is here to give the facts, not to present people's admiration. Enough is enough, the article is pro-Salazar written all over it and that is against the Wikipedia policy.

Robitski (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• So fix it. Just be sure to read WP:BRD, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If an article is biased (I have no idea here), then fixing it is NOT the responsibility of admin. As a matter of fact, we have zero extra authority on content at the English Wikipedia. It is up to the editors to change it, and to do so within consensus and in cooperation with any other editors that are interested. Admin only get involved if behavior is a problem with editors. This includes edit warring, personal attacks, and the like. I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page of the article with some bullet points that are backed up by citations. The citations don't have to be in English, although that is always nice where they exist. Even though I'm an admin, you have 100% the same authority to make changes to that article that I have. Use it. Be careful, be kind, be cooperative with others, and back it up with sources, but use it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I did fix it, I did back it up with sources, but unfortunately another user reverted the changes. I don't see much point in putting any effort into an article that will be constantly reverted by somebody else no matter the validity of the changes. This is why I wanted an admin to investigate whether my edits (which were backed by sources and entirely valid) being reverted at the drop of a hat was a form of vandalism. Robitski (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• You have to take it to the talk page, then if you can't find consensus, to WP:DRN. My point being that admin don't get involved in content, only conduct. If the other editor is being a jerk about it, just reverting and won't talk at all, then we can coax them into a discussion, but we can't take sides on which content is right or wrong. Sometimes, it takes a great deal of back and forth on the talk page. He may have good reasons, maybe different sources, maybe you need to find a compromise, I don't know. I'm just saying that this seems to fall under "editing" not "conduct" at this time. Dennis - 2¢ 18:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll attempt to edit it again. If it reverted, yet again, I will start up ANOTHER discussion on the talk page for the article and attempt to talk him into a compromise, but I will say that I highly doubt that's possible. Neo-nazis are kind of hard to deal with. Robitski (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Calling someone "neo-nazi" is a bad way to start a discussion, and against our civility policy. You will do better if you assume that those that disagree with you have legitimate reasons, even if they are mistaken. If you take a confrontational attitude and call them names, or just come across as if you think they are idiots or nazis, they will lose all interest in working with and compromising with you. Seriously, most editors are pretty good people. Sometimes they are mistaken, but that doesn't make them evil or bad, just mistaken. You overcome that with patience and education, not name calling. Dennis - 2¢ 20:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't intending on addressing him as that, but he is a neo-nazi. He looks up to a man who brutally oppressed millions of people. I've been confronted by these people before when I was doing some journalism, it's not pretty and they don't take their idols being criticized well at all. Robitski (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Robitski, I too share your concern with bias in this article. Unfortunately, you chose the wrong noticeboard to discuss the problem. Use the article talk page for brief comments on the matter and I will try to help you out. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:124.9.91.102

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

---

Hi can we block this IP (yet again).

Multiple edits to a users talk page threatening violence. [66] [67] [68] [69]

Might be worth rev-del them as well. Amortias (T)(C) 14:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting interaction ban or more on User:The Drover's Wife

Multiple incivil talk page comments/edit summaries such as, [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. Perhaps a civility block? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit dramatic. Chess was biting newbies (three specialist editors at a Wikimedia Australia event, no less), I called him on it, and I'm done here. I do look forward to our paths not crossing again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple warnings, including [76], [77], and [78]. Also, this user just made another uncivil edit at [79]. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a unique definition of incivility. You bit newbies, I yelled at you for doing it, and it's done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: [80], as well as other edit summaries by you state that you fixed a mess by someone who "failed in geography class". Also, the definition of incivility, (from WP:CIVIL) is "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments." Your comments towards me meet all three criteria. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment while I don't necessarily disagree with the edits (from either side) that have taken place, the attitude of The Drover's Wife (towards Chess) is somewhat disconcerting. Being uncivil in the edit summaries is unnecessary, as it implies Chess is intentionally targeting users or editing in bad faith. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Page dissapeared: Coconut oil

Can somebody put back the page "Coconut oil". The content dissapeared. Pease - thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.111.80 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cant see anything wrong with the page Coconut oil. Not edited since 27-October. Amortias (T)(C) 14:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I had the same problem on the mobile site but not the desktop one, and purging fixed it. I've no idea if it was a temporary problem/random bug or some template vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen blank pages a couple of times on the mobile browser in the last two or three weeks. Ca2james (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Admins: please stalk me! This guy is following me around.

I´m pretty sure it is JarlaxleArtemis who is following me around today, after I had a run-in with him over at Silwan. That page and my my user-page have already been protected, but the talk-page on Silwan, and any page I´m working on needs to be protected. A short (24 hours ) would do: Presently he is at Dallata and Abil al-Qamh..look at the history. And could someone please clean up after him earlier today? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Two last IPs blocked (one of them already called me a liar at their talk page); two pages protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, great. But you need to protect the talk-pages also, User:Ymblanter: look at what he calls you on Talk:Dallata. Talk:Silwan also needs protection. This is classic JarlaxleArtemis... Huldra (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

He is now basically going after alls articles I have edited earlier today; Al-Buwayziyya needs protection Huldra (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dallata need to be protected, and there is a new proxy IP on that page, still unblocked, Huldra (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know, I was called like this by registered long-time users, and the general consensus was that it is ok, and if I do not like it I should start an RFC. Why should I then care what a sock writes about me? Please keep adding here pages they are vandalising, we will try to react promptly.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! And I think we shouldn´t give JarlaxleArtemis "elbow-room", so to speak. Talk:Silwan and Talk:Dallata needs protection, Huldra (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Butayha and Biriyya and User:Sjö needs protection (remember to protect the talk-page, too) , thanks, Huldra (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And Israeli bombing of the Gaza beach (2006). Sjö (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone was in doubt: this *is* classic JarlaxleArtemis (compare this from July 2014, and this just now. Huldra (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ein al-Zeitun, Ammuqa‎ and User:Sjö under attack.Huldra (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And he's now stalking me and reverting my edits using different IP:s and an offensive username. Sjö (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Politically motivated disruption by 222.153.1.153

IP address 222.153.1.153 has been engaging in repeated, unexplained disruption on a set of related articles. Individual edits may (sometimes) seem like innocent beginner mistakes under good faith, but reviewing the entire contribution history reveals consistent political motivations. Familiarity with New Zealand helps to understand this.

• List of New Zealand flags: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4 - Repeated deletions of the entries of Maori (indigenous related flags from the National Flag section. Please understand that these flags are/were official or notable and there is no justifiable reason to remove them, nor was any justification given.
• New Zealand flag debate: diff 1, diff 2 - Removing all arguments for changing the flag (only leaving the ones against change) in a blatant violation of NPOV, revising opinion polls with bogus figures (to give the impression of overwhelming public support for keeping the current flag), and removing all sourced mentions and information of the upcoming referendum to change the flag.
• Australian flag debate: diff - Similar to above. Changing lead sentence to explicitly frame debate as about keeping the flag, removing section with arguments for changing flag, and expanding the section on arguments for keeping the current flag.
• Talk page: cur - User contacted. No response given. Disruption continued.
• New Zealand flag debate (again): diff - Repeating disruptive edits above with no explanation. Removed entire column from opinion poll table so only the "against change" figures remained.
• Flag of New Zealand: diff - Removed sourced mentions of the flag debate and referendum from lead. Again no explanation.

Please understand that the flag debate/referenda are about changing the NZ/AU flags to remove the Union Jack, so can rile up strong pro-British anti-indigenous colonial feelings amongst some in society.

Transparent 6lue (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Harassment from Ryulong

[81] He knows I don't want him on my talk page but uses every excuse to harass me. It started because he wanted to post links to articles that clearly attacked other people. Everyone opposed him in the discussion and so he has gone to cause problems on all of their talk pages. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This IP editor's first edit under this address is to jump straight into the whole Gamergate mess and perhaps while I was mistaken in thinking he was brand new, leaving him the {{welcomeIP}} template and then the Gamergate sanction message does not constitute harassment, nor do my attempts to revert a vandal's edits or the IP's blatant personal attacks which he will not cease.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has the ability to look at a page history. [82] Everyone there could see that I had two previous IP addresses listed on my cell phone. He came to the page I was already discussing and then begged for more support in a discussion that was unanimously against him. Then he harassed me when repeatedly told no. Is this what kind of behavior Wikipedia supports? 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP's accusations of harassment include reverting a blocked vandal, blanking the talk page as he wanted to in the first place, ([83], [84]) and I bet placing the shared IP template on it will be considered as such too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages says I can remove information. It also allows me to tell you to stop harassing me there. No means no. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

IP users are not given the same leeway as regisetred users. Leave the shared IP template up and stop restoring a vandal's edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:... For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered, although very old content may be removed."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No one is giving leeway to act in a harassing manner like you and to use pages to defame others. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My edits are supported by Wikipedia policy while yours are not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I full protected the IP's talk page for now. The edit warring there is pointless and disruptive. When there is consensus here, any admin can unprotect the page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

All I was doing was putting {{SharedIP|Sprint PCS}} on it (and reverting the vandalism from Harris Beckford) but he kept reverting it and callng it harassment. This is nonsense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure I agree with full protection. Ryulong put a welcome template on a "new" IP's page, and it was reverted [85] with the summary "Removing trolling comment from a user who believes that posting articles filled with blatant libel on Wikipedia is appropriate". It seems the IP started and continued this entire string of events with a hostile attitude, claiming Ryulong committed libel and trolling. That is incivil by any measuring stick. Dennis - 2¢ 21:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, all editors are allowed to blank their talk page. Except in the cases of IPs, the status of them being a shared IP and the like has to stay. Their removal of the welcome template is not a problem, the edit warring over what the banned user edited and the addition of insults towards Ryulong was. The block was appropriate in any case. Tutelary (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The editor is blocked now, so it makes more sense. I already know that the IP can blank their page, being an admin, I would be expect to know that. What they can't do is call someone a troll and accuse them of libel when doing so. That was the point I thought I made clear. Finding out he is a sock, it makes sense now. Dennis - 2¢ 21:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

IPs are not allowed to remove the shared IP notice though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That I also know, I just hadn't gotten to that part yet. The setup was just to demonstrate he was up to no good. I just blocked his new IP below. Dennis - 2¢ 21:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (multiple) If anyone needs the info in during the temporary protection of the page, they can find in the page history. I have blocked the IP as apparent block evasion by user:Harris Beckford. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure on sockpuppetry (I don't know how you came to that). All we are sure of is he's not allowed to remove the shared IP notice, make personal attacks, or restore the edits of the now blocked vandal that you've tied him to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Harris Beckford was just a passing vandal that inserted himself into the reverting? -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Harris Beckford's identity is probably unrelated to this IP who is just rude. I'm not sure why he (Harris Beckford) began harassing me, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, for now the IP remains blocked but without the Harris Beckford connection. Talk page access revoked. Talk page unprotected. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ed, you are welcome to join my talk page, since that is where the IP is talking, and I've temporarily not blocked him as there was some question as to the block. I did block the one IP, before the question came up. I would prefer to finish what conversation that needs to be finished there, since this got confusing. Dennis - 2¢ 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I protected the IP talk page to stop the disruption and edit warring long enough to figure out what's going on, but that seems to have just led to more confusion on all sides.  :/ I'll unblock the latest IP and see what happens. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, hes on my page, I recommend we settle it up there. Dennis - 2¢ 21:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Politically motivated editing and sock puppetry

• Mairi Macdonald (talk · contribs)
• 82.24.172.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These two would appear to be the same person. Mairi Macdonald created an account this evening and began changing the nationalities of UK political bios (such as here and here). Edits from the ip then began to appear after she was asked to stop ([86] [87]). An understanding of the Constituent countries of the United Kingdom and their respective nationality debates may be helpful here. This is Paul (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Odd admin actions

Earlier today, I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers and deleted the article. Later the administrator Urhixidur (talk · contribs)—who was the article's creator—copied the text of the article, minus the edit history, to his userspace at User:Urhixidur/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers and restored the redirects to the article (which I had deleted per CSD G8 when I deleted the article) as redirects to his userspace version. The violation of attribution requirements and creation of speediable cross-space redirects seem to me to be extremely bizarre actions for an admin to take; but as I closed the AfD and thus may be seen to be involved, I don't want to delete the userspace page and redirects myself. Would someone else please look into this? Deor (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That is very strange to say the least. I have now deleted these cross-namepace redirects (WP:CSD#R2) but I have a feeling the user subpage should go too. De728631 (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a copyvio, CSD#G12, I've deleted it as such. Normal courtesy would be to ask the closing admin to userfy, or if you have the tools, be courteous enough to do the job right and inform the closing admin. Instead, he took what is a normal request and turned it into a copy vio that can never be worked back into mainspace no matter how he reworks it. Dennis - 2¢ 00:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would it be a copyright violation? I thought every single contribution was under CC BY SA 3.0 and only attribution is needed? Tutelary (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As they said above, he just did a cut and paste, which means none of the contributors were listed in the history, because copy/paste destroys the history. It makes it look like HE did all the work. That is a copy vio. Dennis - 2¢ 00:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the history manipulation tools to fix this, but it should be readily feasible to move the article's original history to the new page. Would it have worked to restore the original deletion, then move the page instead? As for removing the redirects, isn't that doing the readers a disservice? Urhixidur (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. The real disservice is providing the readership links to content that the community has deemed below the standard of this encyclopaedia. When something is deleted, it is deleted. Gone. Unless, of course, there is consensus to do otherwise. There was no such consensus here. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The standard is to undelete, move to user space, do NOT restore any redirects which should have been deleted, notify admin that closed. Like most actions, we just like to have two sets of eyes on it. We delete the redirects because it is improper to redirect from main space into user space. The other way around is fine, but as RGloucester noted, user space is below the standard of mainspace, so you can't direct TO it from mainspace, ever. I would also note that if the deleting admin objects, you need a larger consensus to make the move. Rare, but that is just common courtesy since obtaining the userfied version isn't an admin thing, it is an editor thing. Dennis - 2¢ 01:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Barfridge Family

Hi,

Can we get this page deleted and salted. Blatent hoax/vandalism recreated shortly after deletion. Amortias (T)(C) 00:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and blocked the vandalism-only account that created it both times. That should be enough for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sock

We have a user who keeps adding copy and pasted content regarding the synthesis of medications. This has been going on for years. He has created many accounts and also edits a great deal as an IP switching IP accounts every day. Some of the user names include

• User:Luklear (most recent)

• User:Deass
• 86.27.20.95
• 86.31.22.202
• 86.23.124.71

• User:Nuklear (one of their first)

Wondering if anyone knows of anything further we can do to deal with this editor? Sockpuppet archive is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuklear/Archive Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Luklear has behavioral/topic-focus relationship to:

• 86.27.40.30
• 82.26.201.113

via (originally) Draft:Eucaine and its eventual Eucaine (DAB) and subpages. DMacks (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Might want to get a commons admin on this also, as there is cross-wiki multi-account involvement. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

His many accounts created this List of phenyltropanes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Page moves need undoing

A short while back Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) moved the following articles (and the associated talk pages, and talk page archives)

• Bangalore -> Bengaluru
• Belgaum -> Belagavi
• Belgaum district -> Belagavi district

However there is explicit and recent consensus on the first two article's talk pages not to move the pages to the new official city names, and the third move is also likely to be similarly controversial, and should be reverted till consensus for it is established (see discussions here and here). I left a note at Jamie's talk page, but they seem to have signed off for the day. Can some admin undo the moves instead? I would have waited for Ohnoitsjamie's next editing session, but unfortunately in all the moves-over-redirects and related deletions, the contents of the Bangalore article have disappeared altogether and need to be restored asap.

To be clear, I believe this is a simple matter of Jamie not noticing the talk-page discussions, and no "action" against the admin is desired or IMO needed. Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• The first two definitely have a consensus to not have been moved, that is certain. Like you said, it may be that he didn't know, but would like to hear his input on them first, as there may be more to the story, or a simple mistake. I think you are right about the third, it shouldn't be moved without consensus either. Dennis - 2¢ 02:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, something is utterly messed up. Neither Bangalore or Bengaluru go to an article for me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN, same here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, the page moves should be reverted due to that lack of consensus, especially with Bangalore/Bengaluru, where now there is apparently no page. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bangalore has been moved to Bengaluru twice. The first time would have moved the article and left a redirect at Bangalore, the second time would have replaced the article now at Bengaluru with the new redirect and created another new redirect at Bangalore. So Bangalore ends up as a redirect to Bengaluru and Bengaluru is a redirect to itself. The original article is presumably now in deletion limbo somewhere, and simply reversing the move will not achieve anything seeing as both articles are now redirects to Bengaluru. Neatsfoot (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the Bangalore one, because:

• Regardless of the preferred name, the move intention cannot have been to have left us with no article at all, so there's been an inadvertent error along the way. Better we have at least one possible name with an article attached, than neither;
• The name issue has been raised repeatedly at Talk:Bangalore, and the most recent discussion seems to show a consensus to keep the article at "Bangalore" despite the official name change. So that's where I have left the article. If there's a consensus to the contrary somewhere other than the talkpage, please accept my apologies and redo the move with my blessing.

I agree we need Ohnoitsjamie's input, as there is likely a good reason for the move that is not otherwise evident from the talkpage (in which case, sorry for jumping the gun). I note also that the page was previously move-protected, so Ohnoitsjamie's move counts as an admin action. I would argue my move back should be considered as a good-faith WP:IAR to make sure Wikipedia has an immediately readable article on Bangalore/Bengaluru. But if there's a view to the contrary I am happy to revert the restoration with apologies to all concerned. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason given was "official name change by Indian government," which is disappointing, since this wouldn't have been a valid reason to move the pages even if it had been brought up during the recent move discussion. I won't be reverting this since I closed the move requests, but I agree that it needs to be reverted and discussed on the talk page before any subsequent moves take place. Dekimasuよ! 06:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where do edits sit with the over-all name thingy? Murry1975 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was fine earlier, that is how I read the two different RM discussions that ended in a consensus to NOT move them. Not sure what happened. If Jamie isn't around soon, I would just say to move all of them back via consensus/likely consensus for now. Eventually, they will end up there, but when isn't really something admin decide. Dennis - 2¢ 13:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ent 70

Hi The above user is in the process of requestig multiple unblocks all of which have so far been denied. At present the are making yet more personal attacks on their talk page despite thi being why they were rought to the attention of this notice board to start wiht. Can someone take a look and pull talk page access as well please. Amortias (T)(C) 12:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Problem solved. Dennis - 2¢ 13:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Complaint regarding an administrator

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

---

I was just warned about vandalizing Wikipedia, and to my surprise, the person who accused me is an administrator. I object most strongly to this accusation, which I knew was obviously false as soon as I read it (since I hadn't even touched an article, let alone messed one up). When I clicked on the vandalism link, it became even more obvious that this was a gross error. The only purpose of this false accusation appears to intimidate me out of further pursing an issue on the Guy Fawkes Night (the discussion was also closed by that same person as "Nothing to see"). They also accused me of trolling, which I think is at best a one sided view of the situation. I was doing nothing more trollish than asking people to answer some very simple questions and turning their own accusations of a lack of intelligence on their head, something which they apparently find very uncomfortable. Several people there claim that the Anonymous group's choice of 5 November as a particular campaign date has nothing at all to do with Guy Fawkes Night, and no reader would be in the slightest bit interested in such "trivia". Since the article tries to portray GFN as having been all but forgotten in the modern context as regards extreme activism, this is obviously giving out false information to readers. Since the relation has been mentioned in media, as has the wider Anonymous-Vendetta-Guy Fawkes thematic relation (in great analytical detail), it's obviously not trivia at all. After pointing this out, I was accused of using nothing but POV, yet when I pointed out the inherent POV in the argument of the person making that accusation, apparently I'm trolling. This is grossly unfair. Since nobody else appears to have been similarly accused, I think the only reason I've been targeted this way is because I'm new. Since one person there was even open about the fact they see Anonymous as "a bunch of spotty bedroom-inhabiting 4chan teenagers wearing V for Vendetta masks", I don't think I'm being a troll for arguing that their opposition has more to do with this dislike of the group than any claimed lack of relevance to GFN. Galactic envoy (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Let us see what Drmies replies. Your participation in the discussion, in my opinion, was not highly constructive, but I do not see vandalism. May be it was an error.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone was being unconstructive, it's the people who treated Buddy (and later me) as if our failure to accept their objections was because we're simply too stupid to even understand them. The fact is, their objections are pretty baseless (and quite clearly full of POV), and they could barely even be bothered to respond, let alone reply to our specific objections. They appear to have been more interested in either answering questions that weren't asked, or making hyperbolic claims about what was asked. In addition to helpful contributions like assuming I was just drunk. We appear to have been wasting our time even bothering to take them seriously. And yet I'm the troll? I'm the vandal? No way. Galactic envoy (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an essay on exactly how to resolve this sort of dispute - WP:DROP. If there is an issue, be the "bigger man" so to speak, and go somewhere else and make useful contributions, as opposed to just argueing on a talk page. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In what way is pointing out obvious errors of omission in an article like GFN not useful? I mean, I already knew the connection, so it doesn't actually affect me, but I had assumed that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia would be a bit more concerned about a failure to properly educate people. Forget about it and do something else doesn't seem like good advice in that context. Galactic envoy (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to talk about the content dispute and how right you are (that's the talk page of the article). If you want to talk about the inappropriate accusation of vandalism by an admin, that's fine, but lets see what the other party says in response (maybe they will agree with you and say it was just a mistake). --Obsidi (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Let's go through the history here. A new account is created on November 1. Their only edits are aggressive, obnoxious comments at one talk page (and one other related). After they piss off everyone, Drmies gives them a warning. This new account doesn't go to Drmies and talk to him. Rather he comes here and rants some more (without notifying Drmies of this report). Somehow, it doesn't look like this account is here for any purpose but to troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you checked the history did you? Why don't you cask Buddy if I pissed him off? Or did you not even notice him? The only people I appear to have pissed off, are the people who also seem to think we're too stupid to be allowed to even comment on this error of omission, and would very much like us to just fuck off because we're vandalistic trolls. I don't think you're at all concerned with aggressive, obnoxious comments as part of the "history" here at all, otherwise you'd have had something to say about the people who were doing exactly that to us. As for not talking to him, the only thing I would have had to say to my accuser about these obviously false accusations, would be to ask him what the hell he was playing at, at which point I would presumably have been blocked for trolling anyway, probably by you, I'm guessing. So forgive me for having the foresight not to fall for that obvious trap (which most people would correctly recognize is a form of trolling itself). But I knew it would somehow be my fault, yet again. Galactic envoy (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This post above is NOT appropriate behavior Galactic envoy, you will get your self blocked VERY quickly if you keep this up. Especially the part about "too stupid to be allowed to even comment on this error of omission, and would very much like us to just fuck off because we're vandalistic trolls", you are at best reading words into what someone else said that they didn't say (and including a variety of personal insults and inappropriate language). --Obsidi (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree there are lots of problems with what he has written so far (from a quick glance through his contributions to that page), but it is not vandalism (at least as far as I can tell so far). So he was right in a way to say that he was being accused of something that he had not done (he may have done lots of other stuff that was bad, so accuse him of that instead!). He should have gone and talked to Drmies, but he isn't required to do so before coming here with a complaint about another users conduct. He didn't notify Drmies as he should have (but I'll chalk that up to the clear fact that he is really new and Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies), lets just let him know what he should have done so he can do better next time. --Obsidi (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is indeed likely.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's been explained several times on the talk page that there's no connection at all between the Anonymous group and Guy Fawkes Night. Zero, zilch, nada. What Galactic envoy and others either refuse or fail to understand is that the significance of 5 November for Anonymous is that it's the date of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. So I really can't see the purpose of this report, or what it's hoped will be achieved by it, beyond an attempt to foment trouble. Eric Corbett 16:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been explained several times to this person that the connection to the date is blindingly obvious (and has been noticed by the media several times)- as has the significance of it to the GFN article specifically. The continued accusations of trolling appear to be nothing but an attempt to deliberately ignore these points. The purpose of the report is to expose the fact that the tactics being used to stifle this discussion appear to go far beyond deliberately ignoring the other person or insulting their intelligence or using ridiculous hyperbolic arguments or any number of other duplicitous tactics used to get their way (which is to exclude the information at any cost), it also extends to an administrator making false accusations of vandalism and closing the discussion apparently for no other reason than they agree with the person above, which to me appears to me to be a massive conflict of interest. Galactic envoy (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like getting into content disputes here, but you are basically accusing him of Galactic envoy of just inventing stuff. As an uninvolved editor, I really doubt that is true. Guy Fawkes is like the practical mascot of Anonymous. I mean you look at articles from reliable sources like this, and it seems a fairly strong connection has been made by some reliable sources from Guy Fawkes Night and Anonymous. Maybe its not enough of a WP:WEIGHT to include in the page, but I think its a bit more then the accusation of just inventing something out of whole cloth. --Obsidi (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• We don't have an "only warning" for "disruptive editing, trolling, refusing to get off the soapbox and leave the matter be since it's obviously not going anywhere", so I had to choose the "vandalism" one. Also, what Bbb says (thank you), and, on the content, what Eric says (and the talk page makes this abundantly clear). GFN and its talk page is frequently the subject of trolling, and the sooner we put at stop to it the better. Let me add that I appreciate Eric Corbett's visit to ANI, and that he is NOT here to unload on an admin may well be a sign of the apocalypse. All of you need to ask yourselves, "Will I be left behind?" Drmies (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  I personally would (and do) leave a non-template warning in this case. On the other case, I agree that we likely have a case of NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Might I suggest next time just leave a {{subst:uw-generic4}}: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. --Obsidi (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

This is ridiculous. Where can I complain about this obvious miscarriage of justice? I get accused of being a vandal, the administrator making the accusation admits the accusation was completely false, and somehow that's not an issue that requires action? Not to mention the fact he's clearly not neutral at all, since he openly agrees with the person who started all this by portraying Buddy as not being intelligent enough to understand why the material couldn't be included. Where can I get a fair and impartial review of these grossly unfair, and clearly one-sided, accusations of trolling and disruption? Since it appears that the issue of whether or not the material can be included (or has even been discussed properly) is clearly not going to be accommodated while these false accusations of trolling (being propagated by the very same people who don't want the material included) are allowed to stand. Galactic envoy (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)