Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdann52 (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 12 November 2014 (→Close is absolutely and positively gaming the consensus policy: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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)



    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)[reply]

    The topics edited on all relate either to the filmmaker, to the documentaries themselves or to the people interviewed in the documentaries. I'm not seeing a large variety unless you're including some edits years ago related to Serbia generally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE 5th November, UrbanVillager, today made 7 edits on subjects not related to Malagurski, these are almost the only non-Malagurski edits in the last 3 years, even edits on subjects such as Serbian Canadians, or on talk-pages are almost ALWAYS directly connected to Malagurski (see also global edit histories below). Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A few very close calls. Most recent edits are mostly in the topic area of Boris Malagurski, however there are enough old edits in other areas that I am not willing to push too hard on the SPA side of things to a topic ban (I would need more evidence of actual promotion/advocacy that I haven't seen yet). [1] gets very, close to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, HOWEVER he doesn't ACTUALLY disrupt Wikipedia as he suggests, and as the WP:NOTPOINTy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point." Which I think applies in this case. --Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The two ANI's referred to by Ricky81682 above are examples of ACTUAL disruption. Having made these accusations, UrbanVillager, offered no further evidence, (but still repeats the accusations in his response below). Every editor substantially involved in the WoC over the last two years has been a target of UrbanVillager's specious accusations. I have created a section below detailing disruption[2]. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:Ankit Maity made a relevant comment in the discussion further down this page, which I'm going to go ahead and quote:

    I don't get this All SPAs are bad concept. Come on, this is not some satanic cult promoting their ancient religion of Sabbatic craft. It's simply a user who is interested in editing a specific topic. Unless the user displays really poor knowledge of policies, has COI or fails to maintain NPOV, he shouldn't be classified as a bad SPA. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 13:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

    --Richard Yin (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that, it needs a showing of "has COI or fails to maintain NPOV", although if it is a SPA that suggests that such a NPOV/COI argument is going to be stronger, but it needs to actually be made. --Obsidi (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Plenty of evidence has been given about the tendentious and promotional nature of UrbanVillager's editing. Given the previous history of disruption and self-promotion by Bormalagurski (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets, we shouldn't tolerate very similar behavior by UrbanVillager, even if he's not Malagurski himself. (And why should we care?) No such user (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban per Obsidi, Ankit Maity, and Richard Yin's comments. Yes, there are some tendentious edits here but it is not all UrbanVillager's doing. As an example, see this recent revert war between UV and Pincrete: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] It looks to me like no editor has bothered to try to explain to UrbanVillager why his edits are unduly promotional, citing actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and why calling good-faith editors "vandals" is unacceptable. Instead, it does seem very much to me as though a small group of editors including Pincrete, Ricky81682, Joy, bobrayner and NinjaRobotPirate simply assumed that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski (Joy has said so outright a number of times) despite multiple investigations they opened being shut down for lack of evidence or concluding in the contrary, and have simply treated this editor in bad faith anyway. There is clear POV-pushing here from both sides. Warnings are deserved all around but a one-sided topic ban does the encyclopedia no service. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, names 5 editors above, one of them (NinjaRobotPirate) has never edited on Malagurski pages, nor (as far as I know), inter-acted with any 'key' editors, it is therefore unfair to make NRP in any way responsible for what has or should have happened or not happened. I will reply to IV's comments about me if he wishes. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessary, Pincrete, my point is that I don't think there's anything actionable here. My apologies to NinjaRobotPirate, I thought I saw a comment from you in one of the sockpuppet investigations but I was mistaken, and it was sloppy of me to have named you in my comment. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's alright. No harm done. Like I mentioned earlier, I came into this long-running dispute rather late. I think that I did post to a talk page once or twice, but I quickly gave up. I'm not especially concerned with whether anyone here is a sock puppet or SPA; instead, my concerns are the unending drama, edit wars, and POV-pushing. While it's true that neither side has been purity itself, only one editor has threatened to disrupt the article. I understand why some people are opposing, but it's just going to drag this drama out even longer, and we'll be back here again in a few weeks. I think it's better to resolve it now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As editors have asked for evidence of 'disruptive behaviour', I have created a section below [15], I will attempt later to include evidence of NPOV editing. The two together, combined with edit history, constitute a WP:DUCK argument for a COI. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Please stop lying about other editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on response, apart from myself, and UrbanVillager the editors who have contributed to the Boris Malagurski pages are Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, and … … Recent minor edits 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield . So, it is difficult to understand who UrbanVillager's 'some other editors' could be. … … (I've discounted, bots, editors involved for 'Admin' reasons:- Ricky81682, Diannaa, Dougweller, Dennis Brown … … Retired editors Producer (Retired May 2014 ) … Opbeith (last BM edit 16/10/2012 [16]) … … Banned editors Kepkke, Staro Gusle … … I've also discounted any 'one-off' editors especially if edits were more than 2 years ago.) Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC) … … Further comment on response, UrbanVillager, above refers repeatedly to 'a few other editors', but (apart from me), does not name them (he cannot, there ARE only a few others). He repeatedly says that I and other editors have openly said we 'despise Malagurski and his work'.[when?] He accuses editors of canvassing.[who?][when?] Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Two quick questions - Chillum, are you still considering this? And UrbanVillager, can you please provide diffs supporting your statement that other relevant editors said they despise Malagurski and his work. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No I have not considered this further. Chillum 17:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would take a while to gather all the diffs, but here are a few: Opbeith saying "'Malagurski's work is crap ... and it's knowingly deceitful crap" [17] (Note: Opbeith stopped editing Wikipedia November 2012, but Pincrete continued Opbeith's mission and gave the following thoughts about "The Weight of Chains", Malagurski's film:
    "I'm personally thinking of making an alternative view of the Second World War, I'll start off with some cute film of some Jewish people telling the world how nice the Germans families always were to them, I'll have lots of stories of the rape and slaughter of Germans as the Russians advanced and as the Western Allies bombed .... I'll of course devote much time to the terrible conditions imposed on Germany by the 1919 Armistice ... I can probably find many individual Germans who did - throughout - act heroically and humanely. This won't be a difficult film to make, since all these things are true. I won't of course bother to mention Auschwitz, the invasion of 20 countries, the suppression of any dissenting views within Germany .... Why should I? "It's a movie .... It's an alternative view" ... put your feet up, get some popcorn watch my movie." [18]
    Pincrete also presents his POV of Malagurski's film, instead of discussing the quality of the article, not the content itself: "Anyhow, many of the claims made in the film are NOT from verifiable sources ... or are from sources that a MASSIVE weight of evidence contradicts." [19], Also, he said: "those who made, watch and attempt to whitewash this film are painting themselves into an intellectual and moral corner." [20]
    Bobrayner calls Malagurski a "minor film-maker" here: [21], and discusses "Malagurski-spam" here: [22]. That's only a part of it, unfortunately I don't have time right now to look for more. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    UrbanVillager's quotes are ALL from remarks I made on the talk page on my FIRST and SECOND DAY as an editor in late 2012, I plead guilty to becoming involved (with UrbanVillager and Opbeith) in a somewhat esoteric discussion about intellectual honesty in documentaries, which - green though I was - I quickly realised was going nowhere. Even then UrbanVillager robs my quote of context as much of what I wrote that day was a direct response to HIS remarks earlier in the page. UrbanVillager also fails to note that Opbeith's and my primary complaint in 2012 was that the article was simply a copy/paste of the film's own website and press releases (I didn't know about copyvio at that time, nor what to do about it).
    The fact that UrbanVillager needs to drag Opbeith into this (who made few article edits during 2011 and RETIRED in 2012), advertises the poverty of his 'conspiracy theories'. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for further information

    Obsidi, User:Ankit Maity, Ivanvector,Richard Yin have, variously, left comments or requested further information above. The subjects of there requests are (again variously), lack of evidence of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour, or of NPOV editing. This section is a response to those requests. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behaviour

    The two ANI's UrbanVillager recently initiated are examples of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour. In the case of the SPI, brought against me :[23], about which the 'closing clerk' JamesBWatson, later modified his comments :[24]. This SPI is especially absurd, since even if I WERE Opbeith (or his pet monkey), not a single comma was changed in any article as a result of the 3-4 weeks (two years ago) during which we overlapped as editors. Opbeith was not banned nor censured and if Opbeith had chosen to retire and re-appear as Pincrete, no WP rule would have been broken. UrbanVillager has himself been involved in enough SPI's to know that a check-user would be so stale as to be pointless. UrbanVillager initiated this SPI because he had, been warned about clogging the talk page with accusations and disruptive comments . Thus in this SPI there was no suspicion of any 'crime' having occurred.

    The earlier ANI (against myself and bobrayner) was almost equally spurious.[25] While the matter was on the ANI, UrbanVillager made this edit on 17th Sept :-[26]. The first review he inserted,(VICE) was already the subject of a RSN here:[27], where it was rejected (editors concluding that this was an advert, not a review). The second 'review' (Elich), was actually from an interview between the director and one of the people in the film. The third review's intro is altered by describing the reviewer ('teaching assistant'), and source ('blog') in a way which UrbanVillager KNEW to be incorrect. The fourth 'review' (Pečat) has ultimately been accepted in the article. That UrbanVillager's changes did not have consensus, is shown by going to the 'next' edit. This happened at a time that UrbanVillager had recently been warned about making non-consensus changes to this section. All of the objections to the reviews (except Pečat), had already been made clear, including here[28], where a threat is made, which is executed the next day. [29]

    UrbanVillager's edit reason on 17th Sept, is itself perverse ("re-adding valid response, as per User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's explanations of Wikipedia policy:[30]"), a relatively novice editor had left a comment on the ANI, which UrbanVillager chose to interprete as a statement of WP policy. Having not 'got away with' this edit, UrbanVillager then offered no further evidence on that ANI, replied to no questions, but 'disappeared' for several weeks, having wasted an enormous amount of my, bobrayner's and Admin time and goodwill.

    Ivanvector, refers to an edit war between UrbanVillager and (chiefly) myself during the summer (In my own defence I say this, I have NEVER previously been involved in an edit war, I was defending a majority viewpoint, I repeatedly offered compromises which were consistent with what RSs said (which were not even discussable to UV), and I ultimately called a 'truce' voluntarily BEFORE we were both reported and censured). I don't want to clog up this ANI with 'content' matters, but whereas I attempted to de-escalate matters, UrbanVillager escalated the edit-war by removing/re-writing the entire 'criticism' section. Whereas I have since then been extremely cautious about modifying this section, UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to insert dubiously sourced and misrepresented 'reviews'.[31] [32][33]

    The first of these two 'reviews', turns out to be an artist's private website, the second (when a source was found, the given ref is simply a mirror), turns out to be a very brief account of a 'panel discussion', written by a student, and Markovic is not a 'Professor', (the word means teacher in many European languages). However despite reservations, neither I nor other editors have ruled out using the quote, as long as it is not given undue weight. UrbanVillager, when reverted by another editor, then attempts to appeal directly to Ricky81682 [34], again misrepresenting both Markovic and Kilibarda(Markovic = "Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received". Kilibarda = "teaching assistants at a Hamilton university"). UrbanVillager characterises me as 'His Royal Highness Pincrete', (because I have dared to ask for a source/author), accuses Somedifferentstuff of disruptive behaviour, and signs off "Now go ahead and let your friends Bob Rayner and Somedifferentstuff know that they should jump in and back you up", a remark presumably directed at me.

    I have strayed from 'disruptive behaviour' into NPOV editing, however the two are connected, the behaviour appears intended to retain WP:ownership. I finish this section by referring to interaction with other editors. During the 2+ years I have been (on and off) involved with The Weight of Chains, there have been about 8 editors who have been involved for more than a few weeks, '(additionally a few only on the talk page 'inc.Whitewriter), every one of them has at some point been accused of collaborating/conspiring etc. with the purpose of degrading the article (except recent editor Ricky81682 and Whitewriter), most of them repeatedly accused on ANIs.

    Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse (I don't have a brain, can't speak English, can't read, know nothing about film's or festivals, don't know what a film credit or synopsis is, and shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit … as well, of course, as being 'His Royal Highness Pincrete' and various other things … does anyone actually want the diffs?). Enduring this stuff is mostly tiresome, however it does create a toxic atmosphere, which in itself is 'actual disruption'.

    I intend to add the case for NPOV editing, when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pincrete: Yes, every time you make a claim about another editor attacking you, you need to provide proof in the form of diffs. I see in one of the discussions you linked to that other editors have pointed that out to you before, as well as advised you not to put up walls of text like what you wrote above. You could summarize: "here's UV re-adding sources [diffs] that were rejected by consensus at RSN [diffs]. Here's UV throwing personal attacks: [diffs] Here's where 700 editors have tried to reason with policy arguments [diffs] but UV reinserted material anyway [diffs]."
    We've discussed above and elsewhere how being a SPA is not forbidden, if editors are not disruptive. UrbanVillager is a disruptive SPA, based on what diffs Pincrete did provide, but not the only editor misbehaving in this topic area. However, the extended detail of UV insisting on using sources deemed unacceptable by RSN and repeatedly reinserting material against consensus are more problematic. But is this enough to support a topic ban for a user who only wishes to edit that topic (effectively a community ban) when they have never been sanctioned previously? (except once for editing against an inappropriately applied topic ban - quickly reversed)
    I'm not an admin here and I may be punching above my weight, but I would like to propose we try a block, for edit warring against consensus and (if diffs are provided) personal attacks. UrbanVillager will be free to edit when the block expires but if they continue the same behaviour that led to the block, it will be very easy to support a WP:NOTHERE ban as the next step. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    UrbanVillager, the paragraph above, beginning: "Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse", do you dispute that my record is accurate regarding remarks directed by you against me since approx. April 2014? Can you cite any abuse or accusations made by me against you that might have justified your remarks, EXCEPT my saying that you seem to look upon the film maker himself as the only reliable source of information? (which I don't believe was ever phrased abusively). Do you also dispute that I, and others, have several times asked you to stop making such abusive remarks?
    Ivanvector, I really don't have time to assemble diffs for personal abuse and consider NPOV editing more important, however the above para gives UrbanVillager the opportunity to contradict me. Should it prove important, I will assemble such diffs. Regarding bans, I have no opinion, except that those extolling 'assume good faith' should be willing to get their hands dirty by staying involved with the pages, because those who HAVE been involved, even briefly, have all had their patience exhausted. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are no such requirements for assuming good faith - we expect it of everyone. You've made some serious accusations of wrongdoing above with your "lion's share" comment, but I'm not going to just take your word for it - show your work. Or be prepared to retract. I could go look myself but we're talking about an alleged pattern of abuse going back years over dozens of pages. I don't have time either, but I'm also not the one making accusations. I'll suggest to you that if maintaining NPOV is your primary concern (which is good) and you see UrbanVillager as the primary impediment to that, then you should make time to find those diffs. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, in respect of personal abuse against me, it has taken place since June this year. I have assembled the proofs below, but still regard other matters as more important. I have struck through my earlier remark about 'good faith', which was born out of exasperation. I have wasted an inordinate amount of time in the last month defending myself against accusations which were wholly spurious. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal abuse

    I have been asked by Ivanvector, to provide proofs for my 'lion's share' para above concerning personal abuse. Below are the proofs, italics (except in brackets), are direct quotes from UrbanVillager, plain text (and bracketed italics) are used to clarify context.

    Do you speak English? [35] ... This was a response to my observation that WP should not be using the peacocky description "Official selection for XYZ festival", where "Official selection" was not used by XYZ festival itself.

    In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis[36] ... This remark was a reply to my observation that the synopsis needed re-writing, from ==synopsis==:-[37] My reply to UrbanVillager's post is Synopsis: I agree[38]. (large sections of the article were removed shortly therafter for copyvio of the film maker's website)

    Edit reason here: can't you read? It was here before you started editing the article [39].

    The film is Canadian, it says so in the film credits. Either you can't read or have a POV agenda.[40] ... This last was a response to a compromise I had proposed over the film's 'nationality',(during the edit war referred to by IvanVector above) my response is in the 'next' edit.

    your anti-Malagurski, anti-Yugoslav agenda.[41] ... This was a response to my querying whether, what appeared to be an interview given by the film maker in a Balkan paper (ie self-sourced), was a sufficiently RS for the film maker having given a presentation at Google headquarters in USA shortly before (the only source to report the event but phrased in 'our voice').

    No, see, this is where a human brain comes in and says "It's Malagurski's film, the credits are there to give details about the film" ... I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop pushing your anti-Malagurski, anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav POV. [42] ... Once again my response is in the 'next' edit.

    His Royal Highness Pincrete[43] ... As referred to above, this also accuses two other editors and misrepresents the 'reviews'.

    Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus[44] ... I claim that I was informing, since the editor had made edits and comments only 3 days before. The incident referred to by UrbanVillager is here:-[45]

    "I shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, and ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit", this sentence is my summary of the discussion here.[46] ... The context is that I mis-read an ENGLISH translation, while doing article tidying, apologised and remedied the error. On this occasion I retaliated by pointing out that UrbanVillager's English isn't perfect (I believe this is the only time I have done so). The entire article (created by UrbanVillager) has since been deleted for copyvio.

    Additionally UrbanVillager has 'outed' and abused another editor on that editor's talk page, which I am willing to provide proofs of 'off-wiki', do so here would compound the 'outing'.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ps UrbanVillager has never apologised to any editor, (to the best of my knowledge), certainly not to me. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Global edit histories

    These diffs show the edit histories of UrbanVillager: … … Commons [47] … … German [48] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [49] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [50] … … Italian [51] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [52] nb complaints about block [53]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [54] … … Romanian [55] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [56] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [57] … … Serbian [58] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … …Global[59] … … 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 (which caused it to be in breach of copyvio, nearly 4 years after its first warning). Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [60]. 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)[reply]

    Weight of Chains: discretionary sanctions

    There is probably enough of a consensus above to (re-)implement this topic ban, but as I said (comment buried in discussion) I think that is unduly harsh for an editor with a declared interest in only that topic - we are effectively community banning UrbanVillager by doing so. I suggested a block but that would be against WP:NOTPUNISHMENT at this point. And I also think that this discussion has tired everyone here out already, let alone the multiple other discussions that have happened recently. So I'd like to propose a different avenue of resolution:

    The Weight of Chains is subject to discretionary sanctions in the Balkans subject area - the tag was posted by Ricky81682 on October 1, 2014, but all Malagurski-related articles could be tagged for discretionary sanctions for the same reason. I don't see that any of the editors involved in this discussion have been properly alerted (per ArbCom's guidance). There has been enough misbehaviour at that article alone that several of the editors commenting here could be currently waiting out their initial one-month blocks for disruption, had they been properly alerted. I propose alerting those users now with {{Ds/alert}}, and taking no further action at this time. If the users continue to be disruptive, they can be dealt with quickly under WP:AC/DS. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, I think a topic ban may be harsh but the editor is taking on a topic (not just the filmmaker but the theory itself) that falls under ARCOM sanctions for a reason and it's being that there's a lot of nasty arguments from people who aren't here with the right mindset. Four years of warnings about editing on either that filmmaker, his films or other things in the same sphere seems like enough time with enough warnings about tenacious editing to say 'go work on something that isn't subject to these Eastern European arguments so we can see if it's you or the topic that's the problem.' Would this warning about Malagurski specifically be notice? (Based on this discussion it seems). I'm putting it out there, I don't think any editor would understand that the entirety of his works is within the sanctions but I can live with just warnings if everything gets tagged and all the editors all around are warned about it. The talk pages have been nothing but sockpuppetry accusations and other comments that really are poisoning the well all around but that likely comes with the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That definitely counts as alerting under the WP:AC/DS guidance, but that is from 2012, and users are supposed to have been alerted within the past twelve months for discretionary sanction actions to be valid. The template is also supposed to be applied to the user's talk page, so the advisory on the Weight of Chains talk doesn't count for this purpose. My impression is that Malagurski is notable because of his controversial views, so it does make sense to me that the entirety of our writing about him falls under the ArbCom decision. We could request an interpretation, but I see no harm in delivering the warnings anyway - they are not meant to imply wrongdoing (the alert template says so). Ivanvector (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: this proposal is not intended to be mutually exclusive to the topic ban above. We could block/ban UrbanVillager and warn everyone else, if that is what the consensus dictates (although I remain opposed to the topic ban myself). Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally, the old warning on user talk is still valid; last time I looked, warnings under the old pre-2014 system were grandfathered in and are to lose their validity only 12 months after the coming into force of the new procedures, which was around May 2014 if I'm not mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, bureaucracy! Well if that old warning can be considered valid, then the topic ban that Ricky applied is valid, although he did so under the auspices of community consensus and not under the authority of discretionary sanctions, and he may be involved. There's a weak consensus above; if the ban is restored and UrbanVillager appeals to ArbCom, citing procedural nonsense here or not being aware of the old warning, we're likely to end up right back here again. And it's possible that they will get the message from how thoroughly their behaviour is being criticized here that they'll shape up. And if not, then a long block supported by a fresh warning will be very difficult to appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AlbinoFerret

    This user has more or less become a single purpose account. There editing has become not very produce such as:

    Does this rise to the level of a temporary topic ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me? Cherry-picked quotes? And a complaint about canvassing relating to a case where you were remanded for inappropriate notification[64]? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, let me mention that he requested mere participation not support (except in the last one where he added his own opinion). Doc James, you've been warned for 3RR along with Ferret, I believe this is just not enough for a TBAN. Doc, you're in it too. I believe you all should quit this battleground mentality. A self-imposed TBAN will go a long way. Just my two cents. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus [65][66][67][68][69] This appears to be allowed according to WP:CANVASSING. I don't understand the purpose of this report, especially given that Doc James has already engaged in edit-warring with AlbinoFerret on this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In the very beginning AlbinoFerret only notified the two editors who have the same POV as he does.[70][71] After editors commented AlbinoFerret was canvassing then AlbinoFerret notified the other editors. Another editor stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing."[72] The editor was referring to this this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a 10 hour difference between when the first two editors were notified and the other five were notified. Does that qualify as canvassing? I wouldn't think so but perhaps I'm wrong. If the post on the village pump is considered canvassing (is it? I don't know), then bringing it up now, a week later, seems a little late. Ca2james (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussions were long that day and I needed some sleep, there is no time limit on when editors need to be notified by, I got up and notified others. But even if I only notified the two editors you point out, they are active on the article and had both edited the article. Informing them of the RFC, and all I did was ask them to look at the RFC, is allowed. AlbinoFerret (talk)

    I will address all these false accusations.

    • The so called canvasing was going back a week or so in history and notifying every editor of the article that wasnt an IP of a rfc. Including ones I knew would probably disagree with my position like Yobol.
    • #85 is out of sequence and happened the night before the rfc was made, all I ws doing was asking another editor to look at the edits I had done to see if a NPOV tag/banner she had placed could be removed. This distorting of the timeline to suggest something wrong is intentional. It has been pointed out the Doc James before. As such it, in my opinion the retaliation is a continuation of the war Doc James was warned to stop but has not. These accusations were addressed in the report on Doc James linked to here. I was warned for edit warring, resuscitating them here is a desperate ploy.
    • My opinion of the WHO (World Health Organization) is just that my opinion, and I have a right to it. The WHO is treated like some kind of God on the article. While he has me saying my opinion of the WHO on a talk page, he doesnt have diff's of me removing statements of the WHO from the article.
    • The third was a sarcastic response to a well known edit warrior QuackGuru with a long ban list history calling the additions of another editor ridiculous.

    This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on Doc James. Perhaps its time for a boomerang. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I still think the two tags are unnecessary. You disagree? You restored the tag of shame to the lede without explaining what is wrong with the lede. Please explain what is wrong with the lede or remove the tag from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That tag was placed by Kim, you removed it with an open RFC on it, that is still open. I replaced it because it is the subject of an open RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't shown what is the issue with the lede and yet you want to keep it in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be wiser to keep content related stuff to the article talk page. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it appears that a few editors want to exclude the position of the World Health Organization and a review article published in Circulation (journal), one of medicines most respected journals. They instead wish to replace these with the position of a single author review published in a 1 year old journal with an impact factor of zero.[73] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for showing your true motivation, a conflict over content, and silencing those that disagree with you. The boomerang should hit hard AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure it will. My motivation is to accurately reflect the best available sources. Personal attacks are unfortunately becoming more common [74] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you proved personal attacks are becoming common by coming here. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Doc, but do you really think that fighting over content issues is appropriate for AN/I? Noone - None - Zip - Nada persons want to "exclude the position of the World Health Organization". The issue over a particular conference report from the WHO is significantly more complex than should be dragged out here, and certaintly not by misrepresenting peoples views. --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While we have this comment The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless, which sounds like a desire to exclude the WHOs position IMO. If some come to the discussion with this perspective it makes it difficult to edit health related content. And than we have the personal insults. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that sarcastic comment, at a person who made a negative comment on another editors edits using the same word. Who has been pointed out a few times for disruptive editing of the article #1 #2. Where can we find the entry on this page from you for QuackGuru who shares your point of view? Nobody has tried to remove the WHO from the article. There is a report they commissioned, that is used 36 times, its use needs to be scaled back, but its used more and more.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's note one thing. Doc, you've accused him of being an SPA, which I believe he is not. But the fact that he's made 786 (take away or give a few, I used Ctrl+F on his contribs) edits to E-cigarette related stuff is disturbing. And unless, he's been factually incorrect, has failed to maintain a NPOV or has some kind of a COI, there's really no problem if this is a SPA. Doc, you're certainly involved and the fact that you've not taken any actions is an excellent thing (in fact, if you felt you've been wronged and you came to ANI for that, it was a perfectly fine decision). Note to all: Please refrain from making personal attacks. It can be grounds for harassment. It's also time to quit all of your battleground mentality. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 13:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to comment on the number of edits. I rarely make single edits and leave. A majority of the time typo's, extra spaces, justification problems, and syntax errors pop up because the wysiwyg editor doesnt work quite right on my distribution so I edit source most of the time. I will add a word because it doesnt read right, or after reading the paragraph move the addition to group it. It usually takes about 5 or more edits on something before I'm done, even on talk pages. If you divide that number by 4 or 5 its not that bad. While its still over 100 it isnt that bad on an article that is constantly changing. AlbinoFerret 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral on topic ban (for now). Weak support for topic ban, definite warning needed and maybe X hours block for hounding to force them to take a break for a bit and come back with a clear head. A topic ban would alleviate some issues at the page, but the behavior issues mostly seem to stem from a misunderstanding of NPOV that is causing disruption at the page. WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN could be helpful for this user, but I'm not sure that will solve the problem either. I've been watching the talk page from afar, and I will admit that there are issues that need to be resolved there, but I really can't put my finger on one single thing that's the main issue we can tie everything together with. Doc James, just my take on the points you listed:
    1. I do think AlbinoFerret's comments on the WHO being treated as god-like appear problematic. This could be a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS with the degree of weight (usually quite a bit) we give statements from respected scientific organizations and WP:IDHT behavior to a degree. Not really actionable by itself though.
    2. For personal attacks, even sarcastic statements should not be used in spiny topics because they will rarely be taken as sarcastic. If there are many attacks though, then there would be something to consider for action there. AlbinoFerret definitely appears to have a spiny attitude in some cases after skimming over the talk page. I'm not sure the case has been made for personal attacks with just one diff though (feel free to provide more diffs if I missed a lot going through that mess).
    3. I can see how you are looking at canvassing considering that those requests you mentioned (while worded neutral) did result in opinionated editors entering the fray. That does pose the question on whether canvassing was going on, but is there anything to substantiate that AlbinoFerret knew what their stance would be already and was recruiting? An extremely dicey question to tackle, but that would seem to be the only way to demonstrate canvassing here.
    Overall, SPA's are tricky to actually pin down as such. The core concept of an SPA is advocacy in some form, so maybe the better question is to ask whether AlbinoFerret's edits are grounded in advocacy for a particular point of view? Looking over how much they have been involved in the topic and the general vibe I get looking at their talk posts, this is a legitimate question to look into at this point, but advocacy actually being an issue here hasn't really been demonstrated yet (i.e., more concrete diffs). This would really have to answered before considering any kind of ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently edited the acupuncture article so what did AlbinoFerret write? He wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice."[75] AlbinoFerret also wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in."[76] Lots of sourced text was removed from the article[77][78] but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. He undid the removal of text later when an editor commented on his talk page. Now he deleted sourced text again. Please review the problematic RFC. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The RFC is unhelpful and the Talk:Electronic cigarette#RFC goes against policy.[79] QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you on deleting swathes of text while claiming no consensus though when saying order or section names haven't been decided. That is inappropriate, not to mention the Unknown (etc.) talk section is a plain silly premise and WP:JDL. You guys should be summarizing what the reliable secondary sources say whether the source says something does happen, doesn't, or is unknown. It looks like AlbinoFerret does need help understanding NPOV/due weight when it comes to their concerns about "negative bias", such as this diff [80], but that's not a matter for this noticeboard, but over at WP:NPOVN unless that behavior related to all this content discussion has become either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or advocacy. The acupuncture comment is threatening to WP:HOUND you in this context, no doubt there. Basically, I do agree now that there is a problem with this user.
    So, the threatening to hound should get a warning at a minimum or maybe an order of hours block to get the point across that civility is needed to cool their jets. That's just obviously bad. Everything else? Still really ambiguous for me what exactly would justify admin action since there are so many different things that are in a gray zone for whether help in other noticeboards is needed or admin action for disruptive editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kingofaces43, I think this is mainly a case of he does not like what the MEDRS compliant sources say.[81] I think he will continue to delete reliably sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The "canvassing" does not seem to be an issue, other users were notified in time, and I'm sure AlbinoFerret is now aware of the protocol.
    2. The comment about the WHO is not a big deal, and we should be able to accommodate different opinions without allowing it to chill discussion. OF course that does not mean that AF gets to veto WHO sources that meet RS/MEDRS.
    3. The personal attack against Quack Guru is unwarranted, and should be struck by AF. AF should be warned about making personal attacks.
    4. The suggestion that AF will follow QG to acupuncture is unhelpful at best. AF should be advised not to make these types of comments in future.
    5. AF's comment "This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on ..." suggests that AF was deliberately edit warring. AF (and if necessary others) should be reminded that edit warring is not a good solution to disputes. However this ha already been done: AF was warned about edit warring here on the 7th. They seem to understand, though there is resistance to other advice offered.
    6. There is no reason for a few hour cooling down block, this section is already several days old.
    • I suggest a suitably worded warning/advice about personal attacks (2 above) and threatening to hound (3 above) by an uninvolved admin/editor would serve to resolve this section.

    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

    User:Bbb23 warned AlbinoFerret against further WP:EDITWARRING. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Doc_James_reported_by_User:AlbinoFerret_.28Result:_Both_warned.29. He was warned again. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is probably the root of the issue here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. AlbinoFerret is a straight-up WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:Single-purpose account who is engaging in disruptive WP:GAME-playing editing regarding the topic. AF joined the e-cig conversation on Sept. 30, with only a relative handful of edits before that and long gaps in Wikipedia participation. A review of AF's contributions shows 272 of his 284 article edits since Sept. 30 to the topic itself, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his 681 Talk page edits(!) just since Sept. 30 related to the topic. This does't take into account his User Talk page involvement, WP:DRN discussion, or WP:3RRNB and WP:ANI activity related to his behavior regarding his editing of this topic.

      For the game-playing, one example: AF was involved in this Talk page discussion regarding one source, it concluded with no consensus to include the source because it didn't meet the WP:MEDRS standards. It was added back anyway by another editor, which led to this DRN discussion that AF was involved it. It was closed as successful by the DRN volunteer against AF's position, with "no consensus to include". AF appears to have taken this as a license to open up RFCs at the article Talk page over content he doesn't like, and then use that as an excuse to removed lots of well-sourced content while stating "no consensus to include". For example, review this RFC AF started: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC, which asks "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" Several experienced editors pointed out that this is a flawed RFC from the get-go. Formerly 98, QuackGuru, Doc James, Cloudjpk, Johnuniq, FloNight, Alexbrn and myself have all stated that the RFC itself is at best unclear and at worst impossibly out of line with policy, particularly WP:NPOV; only EllenCT has responded in support. This didn't prevent AF from going ahead and removing a ton of well-sourced content with edit summaries like "remove non consensus edits": [82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

      Overall AF's involvement at regarding this topic is very disruptive and a topic ban is warranted. Zad68 22:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose topic ban - the travesty at Electronic cigarette has shaken my faith in the integrity of the Wikipedia medical editing establishment more than any other event. There are multiple very high quality MEDRS literature reviews which have been cited in the article for months, but the medical editor clique -- the same editors opposed to AlbinoFerret here -- are staunchly against including their plain language statements that e-cigarettes are helpful to smokers who switch to them, much less harmful if harmful at all compared to cigarettes, and that physicians should support smokers switching to them. Instead of expressing concerns rooted in policy or guidelines, this cadre is simply making up new rules from whole cloth, pretending that a WHO conference proceeding has been independently reviewed when it is not, and insisting that the uncertainty of inconclusive reviews be exclusively and prominently summarized in the article introduction when they know full well there are no alternative hypotheses contradicting the fact that millions of smokers lives could be saved over the next decade if e-cigarettes are only effective for a quarter of the smoking population (as one of the longstanding MEDRS reviews says) because they mitigate the damage from smoke inhalation. If I was not so demoralized by this sad state of affairs, I would have already escalated it through WP:RSN to higher level dispute resolution to call this formerly respectable cadre to account. Oh! How my heroes have fallen! Sic transit gloria mundi! I urge administrators to admonish the fallen cadre for their blatant disrespect and violation of the NPOV pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather a vast conspiracy you are positing here Ellen. Why do you suppose that a group, many of whom are physicians, and which has created for itself the most demanding set of sourcing rules of any project in Wikipedia, the Medicine Project would suddenly and en mass decide to conspire to cover up evidence supporting a health-promoting device? I'd urge you to think about alternate hypotheses for explaining the current deadlock.Formerly 98 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of bullies who have become so overwhelmed with WP:OWNership of an entire subject matter that they are willing to ignore policy and make up new rules to save face. I've repeatedly asked for alternative hypotheses on the article talk page, and none have been forthcoming. So what do you say they are? EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, Ellen, this ANI discussion needs to remain focused on editor behavior and not turn into a content discussion. You haven't made any behavior-based argument here against a topic ban for AF. We need to be able to have disagreements about sourcing and content without engaging in disruptive behavior, as AF has done. Zad68 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am complaining about editor behavior, and there is no way to explain that complaint without reference to the underlying content. That is just the way things are. AlbinoFerret should be commended for upholding the NPOV pillar policy in the face of so much willingness to disregard and violate it, and shame on your characterization of that admirable behavior as disruption. EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    *Support Topic Ban, preferably in combination with a temporary freeze on editing by all editors By way of disclosure I have been somewhat involved in this conflict and on the other side from AF. I've personally felt concerned by what I perceive as a lack of understanding or perhaps a even a lack of regard for MEDRS by AF and some of his allies, who really seem to me less concerned with reliable sources and reflecting the extremely heavy emphasis placed on health issues in virtually all reliable sources on this topic than on making sure it presents a certain point of view. How one can take a topic in which so much of what is in the literature is about health and make suggestions such as splitting out the health issue discussion into a separate article is beyond my imagination as behavior of someone who is trying to build an encylopedia rather than advocate. But as I have admitted, I am to some extent a combatant here and so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

    I am also concerned about the effect this long running battle has on the culture of Wikipedia. The Electronic Cigarette article has been edited 272 times this week and the Talk page 508 times. We usually have at least one RFc ongoing. This is an edit war on the scale of WWI, with an equal level of deadlock.

    Its time for the United Nations to send in some peacekeeping troops. I'd urge a fairly lengthy freeze of the article contents. I think a two week or longer ban on ALL EDITS by ALL PARTIES would potentially have a saluatory effect at this point. This, combined with topic bans for those whose behavior is indicative of not putting the encyclopedia first might put us on the right track. I'd recommend both of these actions, but either one by itself might help. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Striking and reversing based on good progress today. Will oppose tentatively contingent on continued progress. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support editing freeze - the cadre trying to omit the conclusive, prescriptive statements from the MEDRS reviews they otherwise support need to step aside and make way for editors who have respect for the NPOV policy. At this point I agree that a two week ban on edits by those who have previously edited the article is the only way to accomplish that. A topic ban alone would make things worse. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban It is obvious that the RFC mentioned above is formulated as a vague motherhood statement to be used as a pretext to revert unwanted edits. Contributors wanting to tell the world about the benefits of e-cigarettes will have to excuse the slow and methodical approach of the WP:MEDRS editors who correctly want to wait for suitable sources. AlbinoFerret has 272 edits to Electronic cigarette and 680 to Talk:Electronic cigarette, all made in the last 42 days, and the frenetic pace is not matched by improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Banning someone because editors with an opposing POV don't like the way an RFC is worded would be abhorrent. Issues with the RFC should be addressed within the RFC itself, not by begging admins to squelch the voice of its author. EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Three hours after my above comment, AlbinoFerret removed verified text from the article (diff) with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing". In other words, the RFC is already being used as a pretext to remove information verified by a reliable source. The point about e-cigarettes is that they are new and it will be many years before proper studies are available to provide accurate information. Until then, reliable sources will make many tentative statements such as the one removed on the basis that it was speculative. The big problem is that every statement about the efficacy and benefits of e-cigarettes is speculative (other than statements such as the one removed). The article talk page shows AlbinoFerret still arguing that the RFC is valid—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban based on above comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. The construction of an off-policy RfC and the subsequent mass deletion of content because of its assumed authority is damaging the page; the torrents of WP:IDHT text on the Talk page are similarly unwelcome. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What looks to me like a 3RR violation as well, at a minimum getting very close for someone previously warned against edit warring: Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4 Another large set of reversions the day before, about 12 hours outside the 24 hour window. Diff 5 Formerly 98 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Striking and reversing based on some good progress today. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well-meaning but clueless IP editor

    Hi there. Editors working in the area of New Zealand history and the New Zealand land wars of the mid 19th century are currently trying to help a long-term IP editor (currently 122.62.226.243; who often signs messages as "Claudia" so I will use that name and feminine pronouns when discussing her) improve her contributions. Although she appears to mean well, and is certainly widely read in the subject, her contributions are poorly (or not at all) referenced and many are very point-of-view in tone and content. She has previously been mentioned here which gives additional background.

    I would appreciate if an Administrator could perhaps take Claudia under his/her wing and help her improve her contributions to Wikipedia. I do not want her blocked but would much appreciate if she could knock off the sort of comments she has made here [90], here [91] or here [92] about editors who have been trying to help her, or about mainstream historians who disagree with her favourite (controversial) historian.

    Thank you all for your time. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "Dinosaur Dave" from Invercargill is the editor who has been previously warned about "knee jerk " reactions to edits. He reverted an recent edit of mine without following any of the normal rules of Wiki. Subsequently an independent editor decided the original edit was fine. Dave made no effort what so ever to justify his "instant delete" whereas I had added good clear, detailed information and references and backed up the edit with further details and background on "talk" of that topic. Obviously he does not think rules apply to him! He has previously owned up to making impulsive emotionally charged edits or responses to edits and was advised by an experienced editor to change his ways. Apparently,judging from his knowledge, he is a very misguided old man.Im guessing he is angry he got caught out! Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "Claudia" (IP 122.62.226.243) is engaging at a slow-mo edit war at Pai Mārire: See [93], [94], [95], [96] despite an extensive discussion on this in 2013, which this editor has chosen to ignore. This editor is a classic example of a disruptive editor who refuses to accept consensus and insists on inserting POV material either without sources or, frequently, fictional sources. They have extensive form, have previously been banned and frankly deserve a long-term ban. BlackCab (TALK) 06:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold it right there. — @BlackCab, you have just made a very serious charge: "This editor is a classic example of a disruptive editor who refuses to accept consensus and insists on inserting POV material either without sources or, frequently, fictional sources." You need to either (a) redact and apologize or (b) show diffs demonstrating the use of "fictional sources" by Claudia — and if the latter is proven, Claudia should be out of here on a permaban without another word said. Faking sources is the most serious form of vandalism imaginable, it undermines public perceptions of the validity of the entire project. We can differ about whether this or that person is tendentious or inadvertently pushes a POV. But faking of sources is a matter that is black and white. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You made the same charge previously on the talk page of "Claudia from Hamilton" (122.62.226.243) HERE: "You have also on several occasions simply invented 'sources'..." This needs to be settled once and for all. If Claudia from Hamilton is fabricating sources, she should be tossed from the project for having violated the trust of its participants. If she has not fabricated sources, BlackCab needs to be sanctioned for falsely making this grave accusation against another editor. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The point I made was that this is a sentence -the OPENING sentence from well respected source. -You have chosen to go off topic to deflect attention from this point. Previously there was discussion about the name of the organization but no editor raised the point that the leader himself called the church Hauhau. I did not ignore the original discussion-I was part of it. Yes, we reached a good consensus back then but this is NEW information that was not part of the original discussion. I totally reject I am a disruptive editor. This is not a slow-mo edit war- it is trying to get editors to actually discuss the point at hand! My addition is small and does not change the article apart from making it more accurate in a minor but significant detail.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A series of reverts by ONE editor of the successive edits of SEVERAL editors, without bothering to discuss it on the talk page, is edit warring. 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    The edit history of Māori culture clearly displays a trail of edit-warring by the IP editor: instead of sensible discussion the IP editor deals out juvenile comments denigrating the intelligence of other editors.[97] This is long-standing problematic behaviour by an editor who refuses to accept consensus. BlackCab (TALK) 07:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm a long-term member of WP:WPNZ and I'm broadly in consensus with User talk:BlackCab and User:Daveosaurus over the disruptive behaviour of Special:Contributions/122.62.226.243. I bought the issue to WP:ANI previously (linked to above by User:Daveosaurus) but there was no resolution, and problems have continued since then. Non-local editors should be aware that due to the reconciliation process discussed at Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements, historical sources (pre-1980s) about New Zealand, and Māori in particular, need to be handled very carefully, even when they appear to be authoritative tertiary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommended that this case be brought here. It has been brought to the attention of this and similar boards several times previously - see the very first link in this thread, and the links within that ref - but no one has come up with any firm course of action. I am running out of patience, but I am an involved party as I have tried to give advice over many years to the parties concerned. If ANI cannot handle this, should we take it to Arbcom?-gadfium 08:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think this is a case of long-term edit warring, there should be one or two specific articles where you can document that pattern. If admins are convinced that someone is fighting against consensus, they might issue a final warning. If the person is using multiple IPs then WP:SCRUTINY might also be a concern, though nobody has so far suggested that the use of IPs is deceptive. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, this problematic editor is in a permanent state of denial. She says above "I totally reject I am a disruptive editor" but the compelling evidence proves otherwise. She has been blocked four times for disruption.
    Since she starting editing with this IP she has been taken to task about her editing by users Transcendence, Moriori, Amtalic, Black Cab, Gadfium, Daveosaurus, Drmies, Sue Rangell, Rudolp89, Darkwind, Adabow, DI2000, Stuartyeates, Winkelvi, Mufka, Irondome, DerbyCountyinNZ, Bradshaws1, Epipelagic, Jim1138, Dennis Bratland, JoeSperazza, I dream of horses, Andrewprout and countless times by Sinebot and Bracketbot.
    She has been criticised for agenda pushing, OR, ongoing poor formatting and spelling that others have to fix, changing other people’s comments at talk, lack of sources or poor sourcing, edit warring, refusal to get the point, incivility, 3RR etc etc etc. The evidence is there for all to see in her talk page. I agree with User:Black Cab who recently wrote "This editor plays a game of brinksmanship, provoking and taunting other editors while carrying out a deliberate campaign of misinformation and distortion in articles." I also think this comment from User:Irondome was spot on.
    Seems to me a one month preventive block would be beneficial for the project, with the proviso clearly stated in the block notice that if when she returns to editing she just once disrupts the project she will be instantly indeffed - no ifs, buts, or maybes. The ball would then be in her court. I am an admin and would block her but might be considered involved. There are other admins here, but also involved. Moriori (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Link corrupted) What User:Irondome wrote on the user's page was -- "Page stalker here. I have had a run in over the Dieppe raid article in the past with one of you. The one that goes on and on. It is like dealing with a bizarre cluster of multiple personalities. Luckily I never got involved with the ongoing NZ-related pages chaos that appears to be going from bad to worse in absurdity. I watch the related fall-out a bit. Tip. Why dont some of you take responsibility for your statements and contributions by signing in properly. Then you will be taken seriously, and not as a bizarre babble. What is the most scary is that you may actually be just one individual. Oh the horror!. We are all allowed at least one nervous breakdown per life, and you may be having yours if you are one person. No worries, couple of months or whenever then sign in properly. The slate will be clean then mate. One of you might have the makings of a good editor :) Good luck Irondome ". Moriori (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support Moriori's proposal.-gadfium 02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last block of this editor was in July, 2013 for one month. Since the problem has continued unchanged it is reasonable to escalate the block. I suggest a new block for one year due to the long-term pattern of edit warring. The block needs to be long enough that they can't just wait it out, which is what happened in the past. My assumption is that the block could be lifted if the user would agree to create an account and promise to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. As an uninvolved admin I am in a position to issue the block if it's appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ed. In answer to your first question: Māori culture [98] and Pai Mārire [99] are two articles where her recent behaviour has been particularly bad. In the latter, she insists in as often as possible referring to the religion in question as "Hauhau" - a name used dismissively to refer to it by the settler press of the day, in the same way that Chinese gold-miners were referred to as "Celestials" or "Mongolians", and Catholics were referred to as "Papists". In the former, the last couple of months' activity in Talk:Māori culture demonstrates the difficulty of trying to deal with her.
    I don't know what tools Administrators have to deal with problem editors such as Claudia, but it has definitely got to the stage where she needs to either shape up or ship out. Shaping up would be my preference, but the last four or so years' of encouragement have had little success. If not a full block, I'd suggest a topic ban from any Māori subject whatsoever until her editing and interpersonal behaviour improves. (She does have other interests she can practice on, going by her editing history). She has in the past refused to create an account, giving reasons which seem to me to be illogical; but at the very least she should start properly signing her posts, and stop making rather creepy allusions to other editors' family members, or disparaging their nationalities. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors have shown kindness and patience in trying to get "Claudia" to lift his/her game, without success. The editor, however, continues to show an attitude of defiance and ridicule. In this discussion at New Zealand land confiscations the IP editor ridiculed me as an Australian "who has a limited knowledge of this topic" (In fact I wrote this article). At that article I had removed a slab of opinionated material; Claudia repeatedly reverted [100][101][102] to reinstate personal comment and highly dubious claims. Discussion gets us nowhere. A one-year block sounds good to me; editors at non-Maori pages seem to have the same difficulty in getting this person to discuss or collaborate. BlackCab (TALK) 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:EdJohnston, please take a moment to glance through this archive from the IP editor's talk page—noting the IP's dismissive responses—and tell me if you can see any improvement since then. BlackCab (TALK) 08:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow so much to answer! Firstly let me say the information above about Hauhau is factually incorrect.The founder of the movement HIMSELF called his church Hau hau.This is not "me " claiming something -it comes straight from the Encyclopedia of Nz on Line on the Page about Te Huamene-I have made this point 3? times recently and it has been ignored !Anyone can look it up and see I am correct. At the time of the lengthy discussion many months ago?? this point was never raised. It is true that the church or organization was called Hau hau by the European media in NZ and by government at the time. It is an inference by the editor that this was a term in the pejorative sense. The analogies used are mischievous. The name Pai Marire was later used by followers( up to this day).It translates as "good and peaceful" You can hardly blame them for using this name now because the actions of the originals were severely misguided ,some would say barbarous(murder and cannibalism were not common in NZ among Maori at that time).

    Disparaging ???(looking at the heading to this section- Pot -Kettle- Black!!In all cases where questions have been asked about an edit I have responded at length and often in exhaustive detail. In a recent case about 1 month? ago an independent editor accessed that my edit was correct despite what I would call an "orchestrated" or band wagon attack on that edit by several of the above "complaining" editors.In other words a n independent editor with no axe to grind found I was correct and the others were wrong. Maybe this accounts for their recent more aggressive attitude?

    As for my "behaviour " please check the talk page on Maori Culture -the recent exchanges of views. In every case I have answered questions in detail. One editor replied but did not address ANY of the points I made but introduced a red herring. Neither of the other 2 bothered to read or respond. Previously they complained that I did not engage in "discussion"in talk. Well I have done that in spades. Now, rather than answer questions or engage in a proper discussion they simply want to ban me. It is clear from many of their answers they have what I would call narrow ,"conservative" views of things that happened in the past. NB I have learnt that where I am inserting a piece of information I make sure that it comes from a wide variety of sources so they cant say "its made up" or "POV" or offends some other obscure wiki rule. I find it strange that their was no reaction AT ALL to the edit I made 10?days ago in Maori culture about Maori newspapers, but all hell breaks loose when I insert a section about tax that is very similar and just as valid.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I had forgotten about the edit I made about 2? years ago re Dieppe Raid. It is interesting that although my edit was debunked back then( see the rather nasty remarks made by Iron dome) the current article now has a detailed section covering all the points I made. Words like"compelling" are used! Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "Claudia"'s response here is fairly typical: it's everyone elses's fault that no one agrees with me, so I'll just go back into the article and insert what I know is correct. Her discussions are rants that rarely touch on the issue. There is just no collaboration, no concession, no acknowledgment of deficiencies. BlackCab (TALK) 04:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since English Wikipedia and the WMF can't be "bothered" to make the logical and obvious rule that all editors must establish accounts and sign-in-to-edit, it's pretty hard to condemn somebody for breaking rules that do not exist, isn't it? The issue to me is whether "Claudia from Hamilton" is faking sources. If she is, she should be out of here on the speediest rail imaginable with no return possible. If she isn't, Black Cab should kindly stop making false accusations and we should deal with the edits, not the editor. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure what was meant by 'faked' but to give you a recent example of the use of sources, the IP editor re added this content apparently based on this webpage (not that the URL wasn't given, but in a textual ref). Te Ara is an authoritative source (at least I've never seen it challenged and would support it if it were). The article addition includes the text "From the 1830s it was one of the 5 most common trade items and when plants became available it was grown by Maori for their own supply." but the source says "Along with muskets (firearms), gunpowder and alcohol, tobacco had become a standard trade item by the early 1800s. It was used by Pākehā to pay Māori (including children) for provisions and services, or given as a gift. Chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi were given tobacco, sometimes by the cask. Once plants became available, Māori grew tobacco in their community gardens." There are three significant issues here, (a) mangling of the date, (b) mangling of the number of items and (c) 'standard trade item[s]' vs 'common trade items'. Bear in mind that this was a re-insertion of this content, so the editor had already been made aware that there might be issues with their contribution and should be being extra careful. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See the comments of BlackCab above about "fictional sources" and "invented 'sources.'" I'm not speaking of misinterpreting sources, which can be an error made in good faith, but allegations about the fabrication of non-existent sources by Claudia from Hamilton (IP 122...etc.), which is clearly intimated. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To Carrite: I am completely uninvolved in these articles and in this situation, but my concern is that if it is the case that this is a longterm highly disruptive editor across many articles, which seems to be the case, regardless of faked sources or not, the longterm widespread disruption and the refusal to collaborate or learn the most basic of Wikipedia policies (evidenced in small part here by a refusal to sign posts), merits a lengthy block, since by what I'm reading nothing else has worked. Alternatively, a very lengthy topic ban could be imposed (don't know if that can be instituted for IPs), and then if that doesn't take, a lengthy block. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Faked sources: Carrite asks for supporting evidence of my accusation of faked sources.

    January 2013: At Invasion of the Waikato, IP editor added a fake citation of Michael King’s "Te Puea" book, complete with page number [103]; (I deleted it, she reverted) [104]. This was discussed at Talk:Invasion of the Waikato#Unsupported claims. She made no defence of that citation.
    May 2013: At Talk:Parihaka#Squatters, an issue is raised over the IP editor’s citation [105] of Michael King’s "Moriori" book (without a page number) to support what turns out to be a highly dubious claim. I explicitly asked the IP editor three times to name the page where King made such a statement. She did not, and King’s book nowhere made such a statement.
    October 2013: At Talk:Māori King Movement#Maori bank I challenge the IP editor over another highly dubious claim for which she cites "King Potatau. Pei Te Hurinui Jones. p 230-231". [106] I asked the editor to detail what Jones wrote at those pages. The IP editor said they couldn’t find the book. Another editor (Gadfium) located two editions of the book; neither had any relevant material at those pages. Even as I attempted to extract from the IP editor some detail over the veracity of her edits, she added similar material at King Country [107]

    In each case, direct, civil requests on the talk page for supporting material are met by long-winded explanations of the IP editor's unique take on New Zealand history. BlackCab (TALK) 22:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • With respect to the Jan. 2013 diff above, running a Google search for the rather unique number inserted by Claudia from Hamilton of "314,364 acres" returns turns up THIS cite to Whatiwhatihoe: The Waikato Raupatu Claim by David McCan, pg. 57, which specifies a confiscation of 1,217,413 acres and a return of 314,364 acres between 1865 and 1868. One might criticize Claudia from Hamilton for ugly footnoting form in the diff you cite, but the accusation of fabrication of a source seems beyond the pale. More to follow. Carrite (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Claudia cited page 21 of Michael King's Te Puea book to support the statement. King made no such statement. The citation was invented. False. Fake. BlackCab (TALK) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect to the May 2013 diff above, the insertion may well be tendentious or dubious, but as no specific page is cited and the book exists, one can chalk this up to sloppiness rather than conscious intellectual dishonesty in my opinion. It could easily have been a good faith effort to attribute an idea without doing the legwork of finding the cite. Removal seems justified. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The book exists, the statement does not. It was invented. Fake. BlackCab (TALK) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect to the Oct. 2013 diff, the Google Books version of the 2012 edition of King Potatau is unpaginated; it seems that first edition was 1959 so presumably there are multiple editions. Running an internal search for the word "bank" doesn't seem to turn up reference to the burning incident, but if some other phrase were used in lieu of "bank" that would be a bad search. This one seems the most dubious of the three, particularly since there are two footnotes stacked for the claim. Carrite (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second Oct. 2013 diff is marked by multiple stacked footnotes (which is a red flag to me) and a very sloppy footnoting style, although there is no doubt from even a cursory search that King Tawhiao went to England in an effort to meet with Victoria in 1884. Which you know, I'm sure. The fine detail about the trip ("elephant named Alice," etc.) seems inappropriate for the article, even if sourced properly. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd like to read the thread I cited above discussing the October 2013 edits, you'll see Claudia of Hamilton was relying on sources that had been thoroughly discredited by one of the sources she cited, and scrabbling to invent others. You seem hell-bent on justifying dishonest, opinionated editing that causes only grief for other editors. Wikipedia is better than that. BlackCab (TALK) 00:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I just want to make sense of what is the real problem here. Carrite (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried as best I can to give Claudia the benefit of the doubt - that she is merely being sloppy and borderline incompetent rather than deliberately deceitful - but the end result is the same. Over the last year or so BlackCab has put a vast amount of work into fixing the messes Claudia leaves behind her, so I can quite understand the level of exasperation shown. (My spare time is almost non-existent at the moment so any involvement I have had with Wikipedia lately is mostly just reverting obviously bad edits).
    Claudia, if you're reading this: You are skating on incredibly thin ice at the moment. You need to accept that you fall short of the required standards, and that your content and interaction must improve substantially if you are to remain an active editor. If you're not prepared to do so, you need to find an alternative outlet, such as a blog or a personal web site. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sloppy is a given. The footnoting style, incomplete as it is, absolutely can not continue, nor the thoughtless errors in punctuation. I'm not persuaded that there is a permabannable falsification of sources going on here. I do appreciate that Claudia is making messes and has a bee in her bonnet about "left wing historical revisionism," although I'm not seeing at a glance the sort of skewed POV editing that one would expect of someone spouting such a line. A tough call, from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No skewed POV editing? try this for size or this, or this, or this. Welcome to the world according to Claudia. BlackCab (TALK) 08:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Some formal suggestions for Claudia from Hamilton

    1. You are apt to find the editing experience at Wikipedia to be more friendly and less combative if you register an account and use that religiously. It is humanizing and IP editors are treated scornfully as a class. I strongly urge you to pick a name and go through the quick registration process.

    2. You indicated once on your (IP) user talk page that you have vision problems. You need to solve this issue so that you are not causing work for others by bad spacing around commas and the like. Please do that. Type size can be enlarged on your screen, if necessary for you to see more clearly.

    3. While you are clearly interested in history and knowledgable, your footnoting style not only leaves much to be desired, but it is absolutely imperative that it be corrected. Please use the following style: Author Name, Title of Publication: In Italics. City Published: Name of Publisher, Date of Publication; Exact Page Number. There are various FLAVORS of correct footnoting that are used at WP, but these minor style variations are tweaks on presentation of this central and essential information. You will run into severe problems at WP if you do not provide complete, full, accurate footnotes for every potentially controversial assertion.

    4. Do not under any circumstances use more than one footnote for one assertion of fact. Your work is clearly going to be scrutinized by others interested in the same field. ONE FACT — ONE SOURCE. Pick your best source for each assertion; use multiple footnotes for different parts of a single sentence, if necessary. "Stacking" footnotes is both intellectually sloppy and indicative that a segue sentence or unsourced narrative may be being "fudged."

    5. Please sign all your posts by typing four tildes ( ~). Best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR USA /// Carrite (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thankyou Tim for your very kind practical help and support. Big up to Corvallis! I tried to follow a footnoting style of an editor I believed was doing it correctly but when I looked at other articles there did seem to be a whole multitude of "styles" as you say. I will try to follow 3 above where all the information is available. My computer skills are pretty basic (no pun intended)so I have just tried to copy what is all ready in wiki. I came to the digital age very late(some might say too late!). I value my privacy as does my employer. I find it interesting that you say IP editors are treated "with scorn". I'm not sure why vilification of a "class" is necessary! Shall I start wearing a yellow star? I wonder how far some editors are prepared to go in this hounding? I note with concern that when I have flowed the rules (ie using talk)others have not and are not being held to the same standard. I have already mentioned the failure of some of the above editors to engage in any form of discussion or to answer questions. I cannot see the logic in just using just a single source. Often 2 or 3 sources make slightly different points. Frequently when I have added 2 references it is because they do not say exactly the same thing ie one may have written information ,the other may have stats. I have taken to doing this because I have been accused of "making things up", lol. Recently I did an edit that was about a paragraph long and contained information from about 4 or 5 different sources,one of the editors above simply deleted it saying:"no sources".To me this is beyond mischievous! It was patently untrue.This from one of my most pointed critics!I will be away out of wifi range for sometime now(late spring in NZ-good time for tramping)) so thanks again for being so constructive.~~Claudia~~

    A few ideas for resolution of this matter

    This seems a case in which Claudia from Hamilton either needs a mentor or a proofreader. I don't know if her editing is inevitably disruptive — this is something that the NZ history people are going to need to figure out. If it is a case of disruptive, POV editing, then a formal set of diffs need to be prepared demonstrating that her participation is irredeemably disruptive. If we're dealing with an editorial competence issue, that needs to be demonstrated. I don't think this is an "incident" so much as it is a chronic issue which has been brewing for two years. Claudia needs to make improvements, certainly. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The evidence presented here is sufficient to demonstrate why Claudia of Hamilton needs to be banned. You are now suggesting NZ editors remain stuck with an editor who refuses to collaborate, immediately reverts any edit of hers, will not intelligently discuss issues and constantly complains that mainstream historians are a bunch of dolts who know far less than she does. She has already been banned and has learned nothing. So thanks for nothing. BlackCab (TALK) 01:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Poll: Longterm block

    Please give your !vote in response to EdJohnston's proposal, copied below:

    The last block of this editor was in July, 2013 for one month. Since the problem has continued unchanged it is reasonable to escalate the block. I suggest a new block for one year due to the long-term pattern of edit warring. The block needs to be long enough that they can't just wait it out, which is what happened in the past. My assumption is that the block could be lifted if the user would agree to create an account and promise to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. As an uninvolved admin I am in a position to issue the block if it's appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Editors hoping for a post-block attitude adjustment by Claudia of Hamilton might like to consider her response when last blocked in 2013. [108] "I always endeavour to improve", but as usual, everyone else's fault. BlackCab (TALK) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I fully understand the frustration of the editors involved, named in the post above by Softlavender; i really had hopes that the time Carrite took to type out some useful points would be paid off by a little understanding and adjustment by Claudia, but her post immediately below his seems to void that hope. Nevertheless, i cannot support this option, at least yet. I would far rather see Claudia mentored ~ required by the community to take a mentor if she is not willing to of her own accord ~ and led to an improvement in her editing. It is my belief that the community we all make up is capable of finding solutions better than merely saying (even after much frustration), "Go away!" Cheers, LindsayHello 07:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Claudia's behavior, past and present (see my comment and link immediately above), suggests it is highly unlikely this will have any impact. The editor has a very clear agenda that involves denigrating respected New Zealand historians and using this encyclopedia to disseminate her own theories and perspectives on history. Just how will LindsayH suggest Claudia be compelled to be mentored, and what will long-suffering editors be required to do when this inevitably fails? Go through this whole laborious process again? What will be the trigger for a new ANI? BlackCab (TALK) 11:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, i suppose that my suggestion is that Claudia be told, "You must be mentored, by XXX user, who must see and approve your edits in advance of your committing them; XXX will be looking to ensure you are meeting the goals of the Project, that you are not displaying either disruptive or tendentious editing patterns, and that you accept consensus. If you do not accept these conditions, you will be blocked. In addition, if you bypass XXX, you will be blocked on his request ~ or that of these [named] editors ~ without any warning, nor another ANI/AN process." That's as clear as necessary, i think, and requires no further trigger for another ANI report or more drama. Fair, BlackCab? Cheers, LindsayHello 12:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Dreams for Kids missing

    Nothing to see here. Amortias (T)(C) 20:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The talk page for Dreams for Kids, Talk:Dreams for Kids, seems to have gone missing. There's no deletion transaction for it in the deletion log [109]. This article was mentioned on WP:COIN in connection with a claim of paid editing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#SavvyMedia. Is there anything special going on that required deletion of the talk page, or is this a technical problem such as a botched move or a database error? John Nagle (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just looks as if never existed, no deleted version history there, nothing. Mfield (Oi!) 06:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be wrong, but as I recall, creating an article does not automatically create a talk page. Someone has to create it, by posting an initial entry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    After six years of editing on the article, and some controversies, it seems surprising that there's no talk page. That's why I'm looking for it. John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has no main namespace redirects and its history doesn't show any moves within the main namespace, so the talk page must never have been created anywhere. Graham87 08:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    i just created it. that wasn't hard.  :) it is bizarre that no one has ever discussed anything on that article! Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so nothing funny was going on. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Levente 2 again

    BLOCKED
    Indeffed by Yngvadottir. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Levente 2 has been disruptive due to his very weak command of English - he seems to be a Hungarian kid who really can't speak English at all. See archived ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive860#User:Levente 2

    I now think he's being abusive, but I can't be certain. User:Thehoboclown tried to help by posting a message on his talk page, and Levente 2 went quiet. But a couple of days ago at User talk:Thehoboclown, another Hungarian speaker, User:OsvátA came alone to say, as far as I can tell, that Levente 2 was blocked for socking at the Hungarian Wikipedia - see [110] (I'm going on Google translate of the Hugarian, and that's far from perfect, but I think I can get the gist of it). We then had a comment by User:Pallerti - see [111]. As far as I can make out that is agreeing that Levente 2 is trouble. Levente 2 reponded at User talk:OsvátA - see [112], and the translation of that appears to have "motherfucker" and "fucking bastard" in it.

    I think it's time to finally block User: Levente 2 - I brought it here rather than AIV or elsewhere, because it's a little complicated and not simple vandalism. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, Levente 2 is a recurrent vandal in huwiki, and in Commons too. FYI: Levente's sockpupetts in huwiki: user:Garb, user:Troodon, user:Garbera levente (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kateg%C3%B3ria:Troodon_zoknib%C3%A1bjai). Sorry for my poor English. --Pallerti (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, in Hungarian Wikipedia he would be blocked solely for what he wrote on OsvátA's talk page (the Google Translate version is actually much more polite than the original...) his articles are hoaxes and his Hungarian is almost as incomprehensible as his English. I don't think he could make useful contributions to Wikipedia. – Alensha talk 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree I can confirm that this user has been blocked on huwiki for extensive sockpuppeting and for numerous dirsuptive edits. His MO in Hungarian is posting copy with orthography that is so poor that it's difficult to believe the mistakes are not made on purpose, as an attempt to be funny. The remarks he left on OsvátA's talk page are extremely foul (essentially recommemding that OsvátA should initiate intimate relations with his prostitute mother, and expressing the hope that OsvátA's eyes will fall out -- it sounds more authentically foul in the original). I also noticed that he had created a page about the Nyíregyháza metro that has since been deleted as a test. Assuming that the page was about a "metro" as in "underground passenger railway system," you should know that no such mode of public transport exists in Nyíregyháza, nor is it envisioned, given the size of that city, so the article was likely a hoax. It's difficult to imagine any positive contributions coming from this user. Malatinszky (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Malatinszky: He also created Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway (which has since been copy-edited to get it into better English). Can you tell us if that is accurate or likely to be a hoax too? Neatsfoot (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is not a hoax, but there are some problems. Let me continue on your talk page in a minute. Malatinszky (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He just vandalized this very page with a profanity-laden message. I've warned him but if he's been engaging in long-term disruption and if his English is as bad as others say it is, I imagine this will do little good. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Google translate, part of that message said "three little bastard fucking your mother". I think this needs a block as soon as possible. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Although he was informed both in English and Hungarian that he lacks certain competences (I can confirm that his Hungarian is as terrible as his English), and was advised to learn the rules and improve his skills at first, it turned out that he fails to understand anything and created yet another hoax article about Hungarian greenland that was just speedy deleted. I'd also suggest an action here, the sooner the better. Thehoboclown (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that one was a hoax either. There is a risible fringe theory, popular among certain Hungarian nationalists, that a runic stone discovered in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia is Hungarian in origin, and that this is proof that Hungarian explorers, like the Vikings, must have reached North America centuries before Columbus. Possibly the Hungarian greenland article was a misguided attempt at documenting this theory. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, considering his activity on the commons – he uploaded images like a map of British and Hungarian colonies, though Hungary never had any, or like the flag of Magyar Guyana, that never existed and is otherwise the flag of Suriname with a small Hungarian tricolor drawn in the left top corner with paint or other simple drawing software, and flags of other fake Hungarian colonies – it's hard to believe it was his real intention. It seems he spreads his hoaxes all over the hu/en wiki and commons. Thehoboclown (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is only tangentially on-topic here, but Levente2 has also left a threatening message on OsvatA's talk page on Commons. In that message, titled "You are finished if the block is not lifted," Levente2 threatens to send his goons to beat up OsvatA (and also Pallerti) and to pluck out his eyes. One sentece reads "I've seen you in the streets and I know where you live." I wouldn't take this threat at face value but still, perhaps we should strive for a slightly less confrontational tone in a community-based project, won't you agree? --Malatinszky (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Whether or not his/her command of the English language is suspect IMO is not relevant here. It is obvious (to me anyway) that his individual does not appear to work or play well with others. Threats (no matter how thinly-veiled) against other editors cannot be tolerated. Perhaps a 30-day time out to ponder the errors of his/her ways might be more useful than a permanent bin? Of course if the disruptive behavior continues after that, send him/her to the land of the elite ranks of the NON-participants. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  13:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no chance of a 30-day block achieving anything - blatantly abusive trolls like this need to be shown the door for good. (And remember - indefinite does not mean permanent.) Neatsfoot (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Neatsfoot. Does anybody here seriously believe that this guy, having been booted from huwiki and commons, having had at least two hoaxes deleted from enwiki, having vandalized this page, having posted threats that might well warrant a police investigation in some jurisdictions, having shown almost no command of the English language, will somehow, after pondering the errors of his ways, return from his 30-day suspension to turn into a useful contributor to this project? --Malatinszky (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RTG

    I want RTG (talk · contribs) to be interaction banned from me. He has done nothing but insert himself into disputes where I have been involved and show zero actual knowledge of the disputes at hand or the policies he's claiming I'm violating. After a day out I came back to my talk page to this after dealing with this nonsense two weeks ago and everything closed off in here two months ago. He has done nothing but pester me and demand I get punished for what he thinks are policy violations when every time he has been wrong on his interpretation. I want him to leave me alone for the rest of his or my tenure on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I saw that. I got dragged into the drama when he pinged me from your talk page. I'm not sure what possessed him to respond to so many conversations in such a hostile manner. When I dislike a person, I stay far away from their talk page. Maybe RTG can offer an explanation for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think RTG has flown the coop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, I just found this edit he made a few hours ago where he is doing the exact same shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support interaction ban. At the least, an interaction ban seems reasonable here. An editor should be able to edit in peace without having commentary about him/herself inserted constantly. Five comments in three days is starting to look like wikihounding. There are better solutions than hounding an editor, but RTG does not seem interested in them (or explaining this behavior). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And he's still complaining about the fact that he didn't believe that the Instantnood sockpuppetry case should have been held at all. This is ridiculous. He's edited after I left the message and has yet to comment here. I will send him another message.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Active sockfarm linked to Morning277

    Summary several paid editors hired via Fiverr.com (Fiverr) https://www.fiverr.com/gigs/wikipedia/#page=1 (matching account names and articles here). Offwiki well coordinated mix of meats and socks - paidpuppets "paids"TM, unknown if hired direct by clients or subcontracted by a "Paidpuppetmaster". Overlap of clients both with Morning277 and each other. Similar to a DDOS attack, Redundant Array of Inexpensive Editors (RAIE) or maybe "flies" buzzing around the same stinking articles. Widefox; talk 03:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) upd Widefox; talk 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not know any one else on wikipedia and I am not related to them. I am pro recycling so I have rewritten a neutral ERA topic but they are not telling me what sentence I need to change. Even one editor who filed Conflict of Interest report has withdrawn his report and he is saying he agrees with me. Now only Widefox is having concern. I do not live in US or Canada so I do not know these users. My purpose is to rewrite recycling topic so that people know more about recycling. I deleted blog reference and added simple facts and background of recycling. I am willing to correct if concern is raised on any sentence I write. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence linking articles/accounts detailed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez
    That overwhelming evidence links a bunch of accounts with certain paid editing accounts and same articles at the same time. They appear to be meats with the same clients, so SPI may not find much (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Newzealand123/Archive has more info). Widefox; talk 13:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The unanswered questions are: Has TheSawTooth been paid for editing? Do they advertise paid editing on fiverr? Have they disclosed that per the TOS Paid contributions without disclosure, or been asked (or communicated on or offwiki by any method) to edit ERA?
    A full disclosure of previous IP edits (as claimed) and/or any other accounts would help clear up any unlikely coincidence (as claimed). Widefox; talk 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer is No! My writing is my personal opinion or data from references. Proof is that I improved controversy heading in ERA to double length, used only facts name of equipment and event from primary sources and I am working on other topics too. I do not remember my IP addresses if I did I would not tell my IP address even then for my privacy. Where is your proof? Just because some noob edited at same time with me and actually against my edit? I am not as experienced as you but you should not take advantage of that when I make account and write my first full topic. Leave me alone. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this is the right place to add this, but this legal threat followed by this revert a little while later is the thing I found most suspicious and drove my (admittedly; inappropriate) edits on the talk page. Nikthestunned 14:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not live in Canada so it is not me. He said "our" so he is from ERA. I am neutralizing this subject for first time and some users want to bully me to stop my writing. Any admin can check my location. Nikthestunned was obsessed with ERA users who warned him of legal action so this is a bad faith accusation I am not ERA. I am pro recycling. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blocked over 300 Morning socks in just one incident report over a year ago, lost count of total socks blocked. Unquestionably, they have many thousands of unblocked accounts, they are all over the globe, isn't a single person. It's complicated. Admin have to use their best judgement in discounting any of those socks in any discussion, as the "user" (for the sake of simplicity) is banned. Reverting is obviously fine, but be careful who you claim is a sock unless you are willing to file at SPI or at least provide evidence. Dennis - 2¢ 15:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hayatgm (second nomination)

    Hi, Hayatgm was first reported to ANI by Richard Yin at WP:ANI#CSD tag edit war between myself and User:Hayatgm because he kept removing CSD templates from articles he'd created. I first noticed the user removing an AfD template in this edit, and I warned him accordingly. User has since removed a PROD template from Javed Hayat Kakakhail in this edit without resolving the lack of sources that led to the article being PRODed. (There are notability issues too, there is a non-English poem with no context to explain it, etc.) In fact, I believe that this article might be a recreation of Javaid Hayat Kakakhail, which was twice deleted, once for unambiguous promotion, and a second time for copyright infringement for including the non-English poem. (See this edit as evidence.) Like Richard Yin, I too suspect a WP:COI. My feeling is that the user is trying to memorialize family members or something, as they've created about a dozen articles about people named and related to "Hayat". Most have been deleted. Requesting administrative intervention. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User has also removed maintenance templates inappropriately, for instance here, where they are removed without addressing issues about tone or presenting the non-English jargon in a clear way, and they have yet again removed a speedy deletion tag here. It is becoming clear that the user is only here to promote their specific agenda, not to contribute constructively to a global encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken the user to WP:AIV. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Richard Yin. I'll comment there. I suppose I don't know what will happen to his articles, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Gilliam

    Hopefully done. As I saw nothing but templates on his talk page, I left him a note with a little more information. Dennis - 2¢ 16:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear User:Gilliam,

    You have violated the Digital rights act stating, "Allow individuals to access, use, create, and publish digital media or to access and use computers, other electronic devices, or communications networks." This is unacceptable towards the values and interests of Wikipedia. You have incorrectly disallowed users to help shape Wikipedia as it is today to even something better. Among the thousands of users you have blocked, disallowing students, librarians and probably even historians is outrageous. Sorry to inform you of this, but something has to change. Yours sincerely, User:cod8 — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Since we're already here, I'll point out that Cod8 (talk · contribs) is currently engaging in edit warring and disruptive edits on Pavlova (food), which he is insistently labeling as Australian despite the sources. I have absolutely no clue what the original complaint is about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Presumably this is related to the edit warring by cod8 on Pavlova, where they and a number of IPs have been seeking to include Australia as the home of Pavlova. No comment on the content, but this edit warring is ridiculous. This is about as malformed an ANI as they get. I'll be dropping the ANI notification on Gilliam's page. Also going to ping a few other editors who have been involved in dealing with the edit warring IPs and cod8. @MelbourneStar:, @HiLo48:, @Gadfium:, @Moriori:, @Grayfell:. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for inviting me Blackmane. I have just again reverted Cod8's latest edit to the Pavlova article, and pointed him at WP:3RR on his Talk page. Someone appears to not be learning. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Cod. Thank you for raising this concern. Of course, I am not Gilliam, but I wanted to clarify a thing or two.
    When editing, it is very important to realize that Wikipedia is a privately owned organization, which means that we mostly have the right to create our own policies. If a person is disruptive to the project, and is not helping to further our mission to build a free encyclopedia, they can be blocked. Blocking is not intended to be a punitive act against a particular editor, but rather an act to protect the project as a whole against vandalism and disruption. If we never blocked editors, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that we quickly be overrun by trolls and vandals. Are unjust blocks ever made? Certainly. Can they be reversed? Of course. In fact, we provide multiple ways to appeal a block.
    For a helpful resource concerning "the right to free speech on Wikipedia", I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Free speech.
    Thanks, --Biblioworm 01:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry guys, I have learnt what iv'e done wrong and intend to fix my editing processes. Extremely sorry for inconvenience I have caused, hope this is no issue. Thanks User:Gilliam for your input this is helpful for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cod8 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cod8: Does that mean that you're going to stop editing Pavlova (food)? If not, you're likely to be blocked. You've already continued to disrupt the article after a level four warning (enough to get you blocked right now), edit warred in violation of 3RR (which is also enough to get you blocked), and filed an incomprehensible ANI complaint against someone with whom you've seemingly never interacted. You really need to consider your next action carefully. I suggest you start by reading WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:EW, and WP:POVPUSH. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    James T. Struck

    There are at least two anons, 75.145.144.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 173.165.0.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who have been inserting nonsense material about "James T Struck" into at least three articles: List of prolific inventors and Poincaré conjecture (these past few days), and Newspapers of the Chicago metropolitan area, last spring. These edits weren't the "obvious" vandalism that get handled by WP:AIV, so I'm reporting here. My guess is this is some known problem. Choor monster (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmm. Indeed, same editor, same ineptitude, same interest. Hard to do something about it; I can block the IPs, but it's a bit soon for that and I can't easily say what block length would be appropriate. I suggest you warn them if you haven't already, along the lines of "the game is up; stop this nonsense". If it happens again we can be sure that the IPs are either static or their regular hangouts, or both, and we can block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The style was of the sort of inept blocked users, so I was wondering if "Struck" seemed familiar. I'll keep on an eye on these IPs. If they strike again, I'll warn. I assume he/she/it has noticed the reversions. Thank you. Choor monster (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Iranian airmen

    CFFan116 here. I am concerned about an IP user 70.27.192.197 who has been reverting my edits on the articles belonging to two airmen of the Iranian Air Force who saw combat service in the Iran-Iraq war, Jalil Zandi and Yadollah Javadpour, without proper discussion. He insists that the articles are written "well enough" despite only being Starter class on Project:Iran and using phrases such as "most successful F-5 pilot ever". The issue has spilled over into my talk page. CFFan116 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is unfortunate that there is no discussion at all at the talk pages, and all communication between you is via the edit summaries of the reverts. May be you could start the discussion and propose changes you want to make. If there is no response within several days, you could revert them indicating that the discussion has been started at the talk page. If even after this they do not engage into discussion, measures could be taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried. He's being unreasonable and uncooperative. What now? CFFan116 (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I semiprotected the first one for two week. For the second one, they actually seem to have been engaged in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He appears to have started editing using a registered account, Seaeffel. They behave too much alike to be different people. Maybe you should block editing from the IP address completely. Also I don't think this is going to get anywhere. It's hard not to see how the way the pages are written aren't giving praise to their subjects. And they contain simple grammar mistakes like "A F-14" which he refuses to fix even if he says he stands for well-written articles. What do you think? CFFan116 (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Error fixed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
    I semi-protected another article for 10 days as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Tropical Biology Association

     Done by Nyttend. Amortias (T)(C) 21:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I axed this article awhile back on copyright grounds (the material was copied verbatim from [126]), however the article's been recreated by @Maddy193: and it look similar enough to the old version that I am concerned. Can someone take a second look and advise on what to do from here? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted. Not instantly obvious that it was a copyvio, but that's because of typos such as 1,800 biologists versus 1,500 biologists. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Conduct Complaint against User:Moxy

    I would like to make a user conduct complaint against User:Moxy. I would like to refer you to the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moxy&oldid=633177451 . That diff describes six messages I have had with him on his talk page, 3 messages from myself and 3 messages from him.

    In summary:

    1. Moxy in the past week has made eight reversals of good faith edits by myself, without any talk page discussions. This was mostly to different pages, but they were all in the Help: and Wikipedia: namespaces. This includes 4 reversals in the space of 28 minutes. The four reversals in the space of 28 mnutes especially seemed to me to be inflammatory.

    2. I asked him various questions. I was suspious because they were all pages which he had previously edited, in some cases recently. He confirmed what I had suspected in the following exchange: “Would you prefer it if I didn't edit pages you've already edited? - Yes I happen to be the guy that writes and organizes many of the help pages.” This more or less confirmed to me has was unhappy with me editing on pages he considered to be his turf; and it was a campaign of intimidation to persuade me to stop.

    3. I informed him I was willing to not take this further if he undid the changes he had made. he refused to do this. Owing to the complexity of all the changes I decided that to go through all the changes in an individual basis would be pointless, since he would merely disagree with me.

    4. I infomed him that he had more or less confirmed to me that he had broken two WP policies, namely WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:OWN. I believe I was justified in saying this under WP:DUCK. I was civil throughout the exchanges.

    The diffs in question:

    00:09 9 November 2014 (reverting good faith edits - best we don't keep sending people in circles to basiclly that same information right of the bat. See aslo are best at bottom Will be reverting this in a few places)

    00:11 9 November 2014 (reverting good faith edits - best we don't keep sending people in circles to basiclly that same information right of the bat. See aslo are best at bottom Will be reverting this in a few places)

    00:25 9 November 2014 (Add link to a more appropriate spot)

    00:37 9 November 2014 (lets keep the top simple .....no need for a mini search bar that is lined on ever page. |Fixup bit... We need to minimizes the size of this a per the discussion at the help project. Many of this templates are simply overwhelming and dont help new editors)

    Earlier in the week:

    01:16, 7 November 2014 (short at bottom as per previous talks...they have zero value for new editors looking for help..and trim as there is more then one search box now ...both have info on how to beside them)

    18:28, 3 November 2014 (fix coding so it does not cause all to have to side scroll)

    Later:

    15:29, 9 November 2014 (more to more appropriate)

    15:25, 9 November 2014 (ce)

    I am willing to supply any other diffs in evidence that you require. Also, if you want confirmation that the 8 edits undid changes that I had made I will also supply them for you. And any other questions please ask me.

    --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I see from your description above and the discussions on Moxy's and your talk page, Moxy did not do anything wrong. You made similar bold edits on a few different pages, Moxy reverted them with explanatory edit summaries. Then went to your talk page and explained further why he reverted. You then go to his talk page and ask for further explanation. Moxy gives more of an explanation, but that does not satisfy you, so you threaten to report him unless he reverts to your preferred version. That is where we are at. Moxy followed standard procedure, Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold, he reverted and the two of you discussed it. If you don't like the outcome of that discussion, the next part of it is not to threaten to get your way, it is to use one of the dispute resolution options. ANI is not it. GB fan 12:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence speaks for its self.-- Moxy (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @GB fan: OK in that case what would you say is my best course of action? You quoted WP:DR, this is a part of DR, could you be a little more specific please? I felt he had broken policy, but if you disagree I will accept that. By the way, the only "threat" I made was "I may well go take this further", and you're suggesting DR, how is that different? --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While you didn't say where you would take it further, it was fairly obvious since everything you were talking about was your perceived policy infractions. Your actions confirmed that taking it further was trying to get admins to step in. A threat is not a civil way to resolve a disagreement. From your very first post you assumed bad faith on Moxy's part, all 5 of your points are assumptions of bad faith, that also is not a civil way to resolve a dispute. Rather than taking Moxy at his word that he isn't against changes to these pages, just that he believes these specific edits are not helpful, you assumed that his purpose is to drive you away from the pages. Moxy told you that you have made good changes to at least one of the same pages that you believe he does not want you to edit. That does not appear to be someone that is harassing you or has ownership issues. Someone who is intent on harassing would not be encouraging the person they are harassing to edit the pages. I can be very specific where I think you should go from here. You should go to the first step of trying to resolve any dispute, good faith discussion. So far the discussion has been you asking for answers and Moxy giving you those answers. What you have not done, as far as I have been able to find, is explain why you believe the edits should stand. You need to explain how your edits improve the page. You should assume until proven other wise that Moxy is only trying to make the pages as good as possible. Moxy should be assuming your edits are trying to improve the page also. After a good faith discussion the two of you can not come to an agreement then you go onto other forms of dispute resolution. If it is still just the two of you discussing then a good next step is to ask for a third opinion. Also, you do not have to ping me, I am watching this page and this section in particular. GB fan 16:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @GB fan. Thanks for explaining that to me. While I don't really agree, I shall accept your judgement. But I really believe all this could have been avoided if he had discussed some of theses reversions beforehand. Afterwards is not so good. And while it is true I have been bold, I have not been bold with reversions. But anyway, it is valuable for me to have your insights and opinions, and I shall bear them in mind in the future. Thank you for suggestions on my future course of actions, and for dealing with these matters. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of 3O

    CU ran, mop used. Dennis - 2¢ 16:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The ASH article has the potential for being a contentious article as it contains criticism of ASH which seems to be what all this is about. There are numerous removals and restores of criticism and contentious material.

    Nellyhan made a 3O request directly to Mischief7 instead of posting the request on WP:3O. Besides avoiding the random editor selection, the choice of Mischief7 seems highly unusual given Mischief7's edit history.

    ASH article recent history

    Essntially, Nellyhan removed content from ASH, was reverted by Sam Sailor (talk · contribs) 1 2. Nellyhan reverted SamSailor 1 and removed more content from ASH 2 3. I reverted Nellyhan's 3 edits 1, where the article stands at this time. After discussions on talk:Ahn Sahng-hong and my suggestion that Nellyhan open a ticket on WP:DR, WP:RFC, or WP:3O, Nellyhan made a direct 3O request to Mischief7 who posted talk:ASH repeating Nellyhan's criticism of me, but not concerned with Nellyhan's removal of sourced content. Mischief7 then replied to Nellyhan on Nellyhan's talk.

    Nellyhan seems to have read my user page and BRD, but misunderstood WP:3O?

    Mischief7's history

    Mischief7 after being inactive for nearly a year, (last edit November 2013} edits Vicky Vale at 27 October 2014 19:22 about 45 minutes after Nellyhan edits my talk page at 27 October 2014 06:36. The next day, Mischief7 creates an article in the user's sandbox which is declined and moved to Draft:Aether. Then, at 02:44, 29 October 2014, Mischief7 receives a "3O" request from Nellyhan 3O request who, less than two hours later, posts on talk:ASH at 04:25, 30 October 2014 Mischief7's edit to talk:ASH. Interestingly, Mischief7's concern's seem to reflect Nellyhan's.

    Conclusion / request

    Both editors seem to take my statement that "I have not edited the article in at least a year" (I had only checked the latest 500 edits) that have edited before under a different username and that I am a sock and am lying. Interesting similarity in bolding on this in talk:ASH.

    Would it be possible to get another set of eyes on this? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    For a starter, I fully protected the article for a week, but unfortunately I do not have much time to figure out the details of what is going on. I hope someone will find some time. Feel free to remove protection if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly looks very fishy. I'd like to hear from one of the suspected editors on why he or she was specifically singled out for the 3O opinion. I want to assume good faith here, but I can't find any logical reason (beyond, maybe the editor randomly picked someone who came up on the recent changes list) that doesn't involve some kind of SPA or improper collusion. I was thinking maybe they had interacted in the past and so Nellyhan just picked an editor they were familiar with (which would still be an improper use of 3O but would not have the same canvassing or SPA issues) but this does not seem to be the case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the intersecting articles that both editors worked on [127] you basically found nothing, so from that point of view, there is no reason to think that Nellyhan and Mischief7 knew each other at all. That doesn't explain why it wasn't filed at WP:3O, but they weren't editing buddies. Dennis - 2¢ 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some significant socking going on here. Nellyhan is  Confirmed to Vanessaliam (talk · contribs), Maintain1 (talk · contribs) and Willsturn (talk · contribs). On the other side of the coin Mischief7 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to Thomathe81 (talk · contribs) and is  possibly related to the first group of socks, though via direct socking or meat is unknown.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised; behaviorally it's 100% guaranteed that they are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other. Before seeing Ponyo's CU info, I left a pointed question for Nellyhan on their talk page, but events have overtaken me. I've collapsed the "3O", although if someone want to delete in instead I won't care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa. What's all this mess here. First of all, Nellyhan is my recent ID, and Vanessaliam is my old ID. I didn't even use this ID to edit this article. As for Maintain1 and Willsturn were new IDs that I've created because I was having problems logging in. Notice I haven't done anything with those IDs. Mischief7 - I don't even know him or her, I just picked him randomly from the ones who I gave welcoming message when I used Vanessaliam. It makes me wonder why Jim1138 added some other info. rather than only reverting my edits, and I asked him why and he said that he edited a year ago, and I don't see him editing a year ago, or ever since the article was created. Who is Jim1138 a year ago? Is he a socket puppet? -Nellyhan (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is 199.47.73.100 from New York reverting my opinion? Are you all together or what? Do you own this place? Floquenbeam told me to reply. -Nellyhan (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I reply, everyone is going to delete? This is totally ridiculous.-Nellyhan (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    First things first! I was sent a 3O. Didn’t know that there were designated 3O's. That aside, I just answered what was asked of me. I don’t know Nellyhan. I was requested a 3O and when I Iooked into it, I thought something fishy was going on. This sock or meat puppeting you accuse me of…is this an automated response every time someone asks a question? I’m still curious as to why Jim1138 (a patroller and someone who’s a part of the vandalism team) is reverting as well as adding things to the said article and saying he edited a year ago when there's no evidence of him doing so. Shouldn’t Jim1138 be playing a neutral stance instead of reverting said article and adding things? Isn’t that a case of sock and/or meat puppeteering? I wrote what I did because to me it was clear that Jim1138 was lying and abusing his power. That’s the point!Mischief7 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am restoring this section where the above two users have added their comments to the archive. Sam Sing! 13:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ponyo, are those matches something that needs "fixing"? I don't see any blocks, and I did some recent edits from at least one. Wasn't sure if they were left unblocked for a reason. Ping me (I don't watch here much now) if you need someone to do the paperwork and button pushing, I just don't want to jump in if you had something else in mind. Dennis - 2¢ 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: I didn't leave them unblocked on purpose, must have just been busy and assumed someone else would do the needy.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I'll get a mop... I've got a few minutes to kill anyway, might as well do something useful. Dennis - 2¢ 22:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    64.183.48.206 has returned as 107.220.86.220

    Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    64.183.48.206 was blocked for abusive editing. It was thought that he/she was using a second account, 107.220.86.220. The latter account has started to edit two pages that I have been watching with the same crappy and unsourced edits as under the other user name. 64.183.48.206 was blocked for one month this time. He/she has been blocked in the past 107.220.86.220 has been warned before but never blocked. If anyone would just take a look at the two contributions pages, it would be clear that one person is using two accounts to do abusive work. Both accounts need the death penalty, in my opinion. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, user IDs of the form 123.45.231.54 are IP addresses. Generally IP addresses are not indefinitely blocked because it's very possible for IP addresses to change hands or be used by multiple people (such as in an organization or school). If you already knew this, feel free to ignore me. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that was the case, Richard Yin. In the case of 64.183.48.206, he/she was warned repeatedly and blocked on a couple of occasions. A comparison of the two accounts (work/home computers?) will show pretty clearly that it's the same person. Hiding behind an IP address should not shield an abusive user from being blocked. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked 107.220.86.220 for a month as its clearly the IP 64.183.48.206 avoiding the month long block i gave them a week or so ago. Mfield (Oi!) 16:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you once again, good sir. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Closure review

    Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her. Cunard (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

    This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

    "However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

    There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open [128], it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    POV tag at Gamergate controversy being used as a scarlet letter

    No ongoing discussion, so tag removed per consensus below. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (Note claiming exception to the Arbcom finding, as this is a matter in which I am primarily involved.)

    We have a situation at the Gamergate article, linked above, where the "NPOV issues" tag has remained on the article for five weeks now, even though there are no specific or immediate issues. The tag was added on October 6th by MSGJ, at the behest of other editors and he has not edited the article since. The nature of the controversy over Gamergate is over the misogyny and harassment of women in video gaming culture, a point-of-view strongly supported by reliable sources. A secondary point-of-view is that the nature of the controversy is about gamer journalism ethics. The side that pushes the latter has become more and more vocal about their minority point-of-view being given equal weight as the primary, but as the sourcing does not support this at all, that would violate WP:UNDUE. So, they tagged the article, and the tag has remained for thirty-five days now.

    I intended to remove it last week, but the date slipped by. A thread last night, consisitng largely of vocal single-purpose accounts seems to think the matter is up for a vote, to which I disagree with strongly. Template:POV explicitly warns against tag usage as a badge of shame or as a "warning" to readers. It is meant to solicit other editors to weigh in on the matter. We have done that for over a month now, none of the concerns raised have been found to have merit. I attempted a removal just now to no avail. Admin intervention is requested, as the tag is now being misused. New editors need to keep in mind that a tag removal doesn't mean the end of the discussion, it just means the end of the immediacy of a serious issue or concern that we must warn ever make every page visitor aware of.

    Also note that other editors wholly unconnected to Gamergate seem to see the tag as long outliving its usefulness as well. Tony Sidaway attempted to remove it last night, but was reverted by an SPA. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    Okay, it's been decided that Tarc cannot comment at ANI unless someone else raises a thread specifically about him. Moving on, let's discuss the merits of the case itself. Tarc will no longer comment here, in this thread or otherwise, unless he voluntarily chooses to get blocked.--v/r - TP 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I have continued and will continue to point out there is an NPOV problem with the article (mainly impartialness; balance will never be equal due to sourcing), which a few owning editors (see ArbCom case) refuse to acknowledge. While such maintenance tags are not meant for long term use, I can point to hundreds of articles with similar maintenance tags still on the page going back to 2007, so there is no requirement that they have to be removed after a month, especially if active debate is still going on with justified reasons. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that point out other problematic articles makes a compelling counter-argument. Look at The Troubles, abortion, climate change, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and 9/11. All hugely controversial articles are are subject to editing disputes all the time, yet none are tagged. Disputes are routine; tagging an article with "POV" is a short-term call for wider input into a matter. We've had that for over a month now, and if there are editors that cannot articulate a reason other than "it's biased!", when the sources show otherwise, then it runs afoul of the template usage instructions. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty confident (save for 9/11) that all of those have gone through ArbCom to set what proper editing process should be and approach, in addition to the fact that those are long since "resolved" (years of facts and opinions) so that long-term issues are resolved. This is still developing and only a few months old, and things are still changing, and of course, no ArbCom review yet. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very obvious violation of Arbcom sanctions against Tarc, which explicitly prohibit him from posting on AN/I and Jimbotalk. Here he is stirring up drama by starting a new thread. See: "Tarc restricted (1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions. Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, 12 October 2014, Sunday (UTC−7)" Carrite (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Before we all get on the bandwagon, I do believe Tarc has violated it. However, the game is in ArbCom's park and not the community's, else we could just devoid or reject ArbCom by merely having a !vote on it. I'll file an enforcement request when I get home, or some admin can just block now. It's a pretty overt violation; after all. Tutelary (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My reading of those restrictions is that they're intended to prevent Tarc from becoming involved in ongoing noticeboard drama. His proposal to remove the NPOV tag, which is being used out of policy, is being filibustered by many editors with very few contributions outside of the gamergate debacle. This seems like a clear case of 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Anybody who keeps shouting "immediate indef block of Tarc" here needs to first read the Arbcom decision himself. We don't do indef blocks for one-off violations of arbcom restrictions, even if this turns out to be one (which I'm not entirely certain of). The length of a block is a matter of administrative discretion, but the maximum would be a month, and since he declared he believed an exemption applied (and I have no reason to doubt his good faith in that), I doubt even a short block is in order – if we think he was wrong about that, we simply close the thread down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tarc did violate his restrictions. He may have, or he may not have, I don't know. Would it make the Gamergate article to be perfect? Does his complaint have no merit? Perhaps two independent and unrelated discussions need to occur here... --Jayron32 18:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm Will someone please muzzle these 3 characters...Tuletary, Carrite, and Dungeon-whatever...please? The middle one in particular, a busybody with personal animosity who has nothing to do with the topic area. The Arbcom prohibition has a "normal restrictions" clause, i.e. WP:BANEX's "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" line. I, on behalf of myself and other established editors who have been keeping the muck out of the Gamergate article, am seeking intervention in a dispute because I/we are unable to fight the constant edit-warring over this tag without resorting to edit-warring ourselves. This is textbook "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". Tarc (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You deliberately leave out the next line. It has to be related to the ban itself. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include:
    asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than
    once).
    asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban.
    appealing the ban. You are absolutely in violation of this as you are not questioning the ban of itself, but trying to us the AN
    board to bring action against something. ArbCom specifically sanctioned you for this, and you are violating it.
    Tutelary (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, Tarc, WP:BANEX doesn't cover this; it's only about "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". I suggest we close this thread down, and if anybody else besides Tarc wishes to have a discussion about that Gamergate tag, they can re-open a new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for fuck's sake, I cannot be prevented from seeking redress when there is a situation in which I am involved in requires admin input. Arbcom wanted me out of admin discussions which I had no prior involvement in, as I used to comment on ANI postings quite frequently. None of this affects the merit of SPAs and their associates trolling the Gamergate article to force a scarlet letter tag in perpetuity. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tarc, apparently we think this is not covered as an exemption from your ban. Now don't sin again. Oppose any kind of block on Tarc, in case we were still voting on this. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Erm, if I remember right, hasn't Future Perfect interfered with another thread involving one of the 5 horsemen of WikiBias? Specifically this? [129] I've already archived it locally and on the web, if you're wondering, you know, just to be safe [130], as I know that users with certain privledges can modify and delete logs, not implying anything, but I'm just being cautious. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Drama aside, can we get some actual administrator attention to this issue and the page in general? That would be extremely helpful. FWIW as far as I can see the page meets WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, and the one outsstanding POV issue on the talk page contains calls for violating those policies and is basically and excercise in beating a dead horse, but admins are of course free to make up their own minds on that. Artw (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it help if I opened up a seperate AN/I for the actual issue that could do with some administrator attention? Artw (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the POV issues remain, so should the tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Which set of usual suspects? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Agree: Whatever the history with Tarc, it's clear that what we have is, at best, a slow-moving edit war that is being openly coordinated at 8chan in order to secure a wikipedia page more sympathetic to Gamergate and less sympathetic to its targets and critics. The NPOV tag is a pretext under which this effort will continue indefinitely, and it is not merited by the current state of the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ...a slow-moving edit war that is being openly coordinated at 8chan in order to secure a wikipedia page more sympathetic to Gamergate and less sympathetic to its targets and critics. [citation needed]. No seriously. I haven't single a single gram of proof that any editors are engaging in 8chan in any way, but what I did see was absolute trolling on the 8chan thread, people claiming and spoofing themselves to be Ryulong and North to parody them in some sort of weird hysteria. Nonetheless, we cannot control what goes on on other sites. The neutrality has been disputed many times--Just view the freakin' archives. It's ridiculous on how we can't find a way to resolve this. But the article in its presence form methinks should be TNT'd due to all the statements it makes. (Metaphorically, not actually. Just see very little salvagable stuff that isn't a 60% compromise between both sides, leading to botched sentences and the like). Tutelary (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkBernstein:, could you provide some diffs of this? pbp 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, the article should be nuked, and not be recreatable until January 2015. --DSA510 Pls No H8
    • At the risk of being seen as emulating Baseball Bugs, this reminds of an old Baby Snooks and Daddy exchange, guest-starring Groucho Marx:
    Groucho: You have a very ill-mannered child!
    Daddy: Hey, resent that!
    Groucho: Do you deny it?
    Daddy: Noooo...I just resent it.
    --Calton | Talk 02:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagree: The issue brought up by several editors is that the tone of the article is in violation of the NPOV, not about some old discussion about "the nature of the controversy over Gamergate". Adversarial and hostile tone do not belong in either article or talk pages. Since much of the article is about living persons, WP:BLPSTYLE should taken as a requirement rather than a hint that article should be written in a dispassionate tone, in a non-partisan manner, and avoiding both understatements and overstatements. All three is current issues with the article and thus the tag should stay. Belorn (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking over the talkpage, I see much discussion about BLP and NPOV issues that fits the requirements of the template. Is there something I'm missing here? KonveyorBelt 22:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you see lots of SPAs coming in and claiming "BIAS !!! Its not NEUTRAL!!! You are not covering MY SIDE!!!". But those are not " pointing to specific issues that are actionable" based on "the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources". Please point to a discussion that meets the criteria, particularly one applicable to the entire article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness me, TPRoD, is that something written in a Scarlet pen? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]
    • There is an entire RFC on concerns about the neutrality of the article. Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1. I do acknowledge the majority of reliable sources do depict harassment, etc. but, to quote Masem, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. That is the specific neutrality problem in the article. Also, an additional problem in the lead-> search for Masem's post in Talk:Gamergate controversy on "18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)". starship.paint ~ regal 23:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof)" - that's your own personal feeling. The only question is, do reliable sources use these so-called "negative words" such as "harassment" and "misogyny". And you're goddamn right they do. So you're basically whining about the fact that the article reflects reliable sources. Get over it. Quit tagging the article per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's other outlets for your frustration on the internet. Hundreds of them. This ain't one of them. Volunteer Marek  23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's of course no way that we can hide those words in the discussion of GG - they fill 90% of the sources at least. However, per IMPARTIAL and FRINGE, we cannot act like the press's opinion is the only opinion. We're not going to balance the article, but we can write it impartially to treat both sides in a clinically neutral manner as NPOV requires. This means we don't need to use lengthy pull quotes (which bring those words up again over and over) to hammer in the press's side of the argument, but we do have to mention these as serious issues that the situation has presented and has tainted the GG arguments. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    thats just crazy talk. you would need to through out our policy of UNDUE AND all of the reliable sources AND then inappropriately give the claims that have been repeatedly invalidated by the sources credence. Your TE pushing of such nonsense needs to stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For all the discussion on the talk page, I don't see any useful reliable sources there that aren't in the article. To quote WP:UNDUE Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There are a buttload of sources on one side of this issue, just as there are a buttload of sources on one side of the shape of the earth, but our role is not to ensure that the flat-earthers get equal column-inches. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about ensuring that "that the flat-earthers get equal column-inches". It's about presenting and phrasing the discussion in an impartial and neutral manner, and not taking any sides. starship.paint ~ regal 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the tag, please identify specifically one of these "phrasings" or "not taking sides" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, starship, Avono, Belorn, Random, and Retartist, (all five of whom argued for keeping the tag) are all very much not SPAs as you claim. Not sure why this is being raised here as it is clearly a content dispute and not a matter for administrative attention, unless you are requesting full protection of the article, but that should be requested at RPP. You are literally just fueling the edit war.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree: I agree with the devil's advocate that this isn't an appropriate issue for ANI. If anything a failure at the talkpage should result in an RFC to get more opinions. Seeking to settle content disputes through administrative action rather than consensus is an endemic problem here. As far as the tag goes, it is clearly the case that the neutrality of the article in under dispute, and casually reading the article makes me feel that is correct. The article is pseudo-psychoanalysis written by people with no experience in psychology trying to diagnose an unorganized group as being driven to misogyny due to a cultural identity crisis. Being a reviewer of videogames doesn't qualify you to discuss the death of "the gamer" identity. I also couldn't help but notice that after skimming the article I have come absolutely no closer to understanding what these groups are even arguing about; it seems the article should be renamed Analysis of GamerGater's motives by the media.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. The weight of reliable sources is so far tipped against them, that User:Masem has resorted to attempting to jettison a core principle of Wikipedia regarding reliable sources with tortured -- and evidence-free -- claim about how ironclad reliable sources aren't actually reliable, owing to some original reasoning rendering them suspect, which is -- somehow -- supposed to therefore allow the GamerGate partisans s,ome sort of carte blanche to tip the scales. And User:The Devil's Advocate is, of course, once more indulging in his hobby of being contrarian for its own sake. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The bulk of the sourcing about GG is opinions; there has been no verified evidence (outside of observation) that the GG movement is one based on misogyny: The pattern appears misogynistic to most of the press, but that's opinion, and not fact. That does not jettison any RSes, but instead demands we treat them as opinion pieces and not fact. The overreliance of opinions, however, does pose an NPOV problem.--MASEM (t) 04:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • BLP issues: One has to be careful: the Gamergate controversy is basically a number of unfounded attacks on a number of named individuals, and a number of - to use the term people are using above - "Gamergaters" who want to promote these attacks. We can't, per WP:BLP, repeat the claims of the Gamergaters without quite a lot of sourcing explaining that there's no evidence. As such, we literally cannot give into the demands. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree - removed it once, only to be reverted by one of the involved editors here whose other edits consist of MMA and "professional" "wrestling" article minutia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Disappointing that an admin someone needs to bring up my background to make a point, and only half right about that too. (yeah my post is ironic) starship.paint ~ regal 13:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree The many enthusiasts will prevent removal of the POV tag despite the fact that there is no reason for its presence other than as an expression of discontent. The talk page discussion gives no examples of problematic text, and the only justification is to point to an unclear vote. The issues presented by this topic are rare, and an uninvolved admin should remove the tag and warn anyone restoring it that a precise justification is required before addition. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's been many many other sections , outside of that one, at least by myself, through the current and the archives. The lead is not impartial (immediately focusing on an effect of the controversy and not the subject of it), and the section about the ethics concerns of the GG is written against how IMPARTIAL and FRINGE would suggest, giving those parts the benefit of the doubt. I've also repeatedly address the use of far too many lengthy quotes to drill how "GG IS BAD, OKAY". We don't have to give that side any sympathy since the sources don't do it, but we shouldn't prejudge them in WP's tone and voice. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Masem, you are inverting the very meaning of WP:FRINGE to say that when the reliable sources report something, Wikipedia should go out of our way to find less reliable sources that disagree. That's exactly what WP:FRINGE is supposed to preclude: a false equivalency in the name of a bogus balance not supported by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's absolutely not what I'm asking for. I've been working on the basis that the sources that are there are fixed. And they are clearly against the GG side. That can't change, the article will absolutely carry a pre-dominate "antiGG" basis. However, impartialness and balance are two different things. And no, I'm not asking either for what the proGG would really love, having them smell like flowers and trash the press side, that's absolutely impossible. I am trying to get the article to be impartial - which means that when we present any arguments in favor of proGG, we don't give those any more praise in WP's voice, and when we present arguments against GG, we don't condemn them in the same way- the balance of sources is not touched at all. Absolutely 100%, we are going to say "the mainstream press considers GG misogystic-driven movement", as that is impartial, but we cannot say "GG is a misogystic-driven movement" , or use lenghty pull quotes to keep pounding that point into place. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • As an example of what I would consider impartial, this [131] is an edit (later reverted) to the section about the ethics concerns of the GG, which generally have been laughed off, for the most part, by the press. My change did not drop any sources (in fact added more critical sources of the movement), but simply reordered the language to follow how FRINGE puts it - give the minority point at least whatever reason space can be given. Which works out to a handful of sentences out of 5 total paragraphs - the balance that the credibility of the GG's ethics issues have been given in the press. But the way it is written (give or take grammar) doesn't prejudge the GG side as the prior version had done, until after we've given all we really can on the GG side. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem, you're really getting it wrong. "Some say X", "Some say Y", is your version of "impartial"? That's not an encyclopaedia article, that's a bunch of wish-washy nonsense. You're trying to skirt around the facts reported by reliable sources, discrediting them with "some[who?]". If you actually had to write out the substance of the "some", it would be "nearly all sources that Wikipedia usually considers reliable". This is WP:GEVAL, pure and simple, and it is wrong. I'm shocked to see that you are an administrator, given that you clearly lack comprehension of the applicable policies. RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No it's not, that's absolutely not what I have. We have a controversy, with two primary sides. The GG side which has minimal - but enough - coverage to explain what their point is, and the rest of the media/press that strongly condemned that side for its actions and its unactionable statements. As per FRINGE, like the Birthers or the 9/11 truthers, we explain - without prejudgement - what the fringe point is, and then we start explaining the criticism about that point. "Some say X" "Some say Y" is a fair way to handle that. WE have to be wishy-washy and not take any sides regardless of the press (aka court of public opinion) in presenting information, though that won't change the balance. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry Masem, but your claims about Gamergate have no basis in standard procedure and you are losing credibility. There is no pro-gamergate organization that could be described in a neutral manner per what it did and what statements it made. The only thing that actually exists is an ill-defined group of gamers, some of whom have performed despicable harassment, with many more who have supported the harassment—even at Wikipedia, we see commentary about how the claims of the victims may be a hoax. There are plenty of gamers who do not support harassment, but no reliable sources have tracked them down and written a coherent account of what they have done and what statements they have made. Therefore, there is very little material that can show pro-gamergate activity in a positive manner. The resulting article is a product of WP:NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, I'm not asking to show it in a positive manner (we can't), but simply to give them a say without comment in a clinically neutral manner. For example, one thing we can document from antiGG sources is that the proGG side wants reviews for games done in a more objective manner, which most of us all agree is a contradiction of what a review is. But we can document from a high quality RS that this is there claim. And that's all we'd be able to say in any sort of favor about it. So the next sentence in the prose would be the appropriate response to that by the press, which has been one of ridicule. However, I am aware there are many many more claims that some GGers have made like "false flags" by the targets of harassment, but these claims have not been picked up by any reliable source at all, so there's absolutely no reason to include that. My point is that there is a few points made about the GG side that are made by the better reliable sources that we can address without comment or twisting the statement, and then provide a lengthy counterpoint about why that's not going to fly. It is just like we do with other FRINGE topics. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't that more or less what the second sentence of the article says? "Many supporters ... say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism" Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but after presenting the result of the controversy (the harassment and misogyny) which is prejudging the issue and not impartial; compared to where if we simply moved that part of the first sentence to the third sentence, we ascribe no "topic" of what the controversy is broadly about (that's part of the issue of reporting it in the first place) and then present one side (second sentence), and then the counterpoint of the other side (third sentence). This is a similar way to redo the section about ethics considers as I linked in the diff above, stating that those concerns without prejudging them, and then throwing all the opinions of the press to show how fringy they are. --MASEM (t) 06:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's because the controversy has nothing to do with journalism ethics — outside of the pro-GG fringe, the debate is entirely framed around the campaign of vile harassment and threats made by the movement's supporters. Nobody outside the movement takes the "but ethics" claims seriously, because as has been discussed in literally dozens of reliable sources, the movement hasn't made any meaningful claims that neutral sources view as being about journalism ethics. The only people with the POV that GamerGate is about journalism ethics are GG supporters, and they are demonstrably a fringe POV, based upon the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. What we have is a situation where everyone outside GG looks at the movement and says "Wow, there's a lot of misogynistic harassment against women who aren't even journalists, they're bizarrely demanding 'objective reviews' that don't exist, they want to silence anyone who is criticising games from a feminist perspective and are still clinging to long-discredited arguments about Zoe Quinn. Literally none of this has anything to do with journalism ethics." GG supporters respond "but ethics!" repeated ad infinitum. Wikipedia cannot fail to take into account that clear and indisputable dichotomy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It takes a quick glance at the article to see that there is bias, so I find these complaints ridiculous. If you want specifics:
    Actor Wil Wheaton and former NFL player Chris Kluwe also posted criticisms of GamerGate, with Kluwe's being noted for its use of "creative insults",
    Why are we randomly praising the insults of someone against GamerGate as being "creative"?
    "virulent opposition to social criticism and analysis of video games."
    Is one reporter, really sufficient to back up the claim that so-called "GamerGaters" are fundamentally opposed to social criticism and analysis of videogames? That is a ridiculous thing for someone to be opposed to and sounds like projecting.
    "However, Hill said that Gamergate's perception of how the games industry works is "completely different" from reality"
    This needs elaboration. It is just a floating sentence, it doesn't connect with the previous sentence or subsequent sentence. Can we at least **explain** what their perception of the games industry is if we are going to call it completely wrong?
    "Gamergate really can't claim to have exposed anything but their own visceral meanness, which borders on fascism,"
    Are we just building a coatrack to hang any negative quotes we can find about GamerGaters?
    "Writing in Vox, Todd VanDerWerff said "Every single question of journalistic ethics GamerGate has brought up has either been debunked or dealt with", yet "GamerGate seems to keep raging simply to do two things: harass women and endlessly perpetuate itself so it can keep harassing women."
    I am confused. Earlier in this article, it is stated "Video game journalists have acknowledged that there are conflicts of interest and other ethical problems within the video game industry, with some news sites adopting new policies in response to the Gamergate controversy." This is a recurrent theme in this article, stating that there are legitimate problems with ethics in gaming journalism, but that Gamergaters haven't focused on these problems. Now we are quoting a journalist stating that Gamergaters cannot come up with a single legitimate ethics problem, and that they are driven solely to by a desire to harass women. At the very least I would like to hear what these debunked questions of journalism ethics were/are?
    "In The Guardian, Jon Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis, it almost exclusively attacked "others" and those it sees as "biased", it has hit lists of undesirable journalists, and used military-style hyperbole. "
    What could be less biased then mentioning that there are GamerGaters who are "known neo-nazis". I'm sure there are Republican and Democrat neo-Nazis as well, should we just mention that in passing in their respective articles?
    While saying gamers were just "opposed to change for the sake of change",
    So they are misogynists, with neo-Nazis, who are opposed to any type of social criticism or analysis of videogames, are opposed to change just because they hate change. I'm sure there's more in this article I would dislike if I continued reading it, but I think I've made my point, and I think those claiming that the article isn't biased have not actually read the article.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are almost exclusively complaining about quoted text rather than anything original to Wikipedia. And this belongs on the article talk page rather than here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point with that "creative insults" thing (it's unnecessary), but are pretty wrong about everything else. Volunteer Marek  05:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Creative insults" is a quote from one of the sources cited in the article that essentially paraphrases Kluwe's uses of the phrases "slackjawed pickletits", "slopebrowed weaseldicks", and "basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistol" amongst others.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @ All 3 of you: it is obviously biased to cherry pick a bunch of random insults and place them them throughout an article, please explain how mentioning that there are Neo-Nazis who are also gamergaters is not "unnecessary", and please consider issues like how repeatedly characterizing a subject with negative adjectives while applying positive ones like "creative" to the criticizer of the subject can generate an overall biased tone to the article. Please see the article on Hitler and notice how it doesn't excessively pepper the prose with disparaging adjectives and quotes about Hitler, but actually tries to inform the reader about the subject. That is what an NPOV article is.AioftheStorm (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we really allowing the constant comparisons to Hitler on ANI when it has been banned from the talk page? But I digress.
    If you would read the reference being cited for the "Neo-Nazi" mention, it would go on to say how Gamergate has been co-opted by right-wing conservatives who don't give a damn about video games or video game journalism and are instead people who are anti-women, anti-feminism, or anti-minorities. And "creative insults" is a quote in the reference cited. Everything is in the references being cited. They are all marked as quotations from the citations. Read the references instead of going on and on about bias that doesn't exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been to the talkpage, so I have no idea about special Hitler sanctions, and I fail to see how pointing out that the Hitler article is NPOV despite the overwhelming amount of sources being extremely negative about him would be in anyways problematic or how it constitutes "constant comparisons to Hitler". You have not provided any argument about the merits of inclusion of details such as there are known Neo-Nazis who are gamergaters, you have simply and inadequately responded that all these factoids have appeared in reliable sources. Inclusion in a reliable source is not sufficient for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, there are concerns such as NPOV and there are mechanisms such as placing tags at the tops of articles in order to ensure that those concerns are addressed. And since I can't use Hitler I will bring up another generic "bad guy", Commodus, and point out that his article isn't hodgepodge of negative attack quotes. Are there thousands of negative attack quotes about Commodus? Most certainly, probably enough to fill hundreds of articles. But it would be similarly biased if it contained those.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Hitler" comparisons prevail in offsite discussions. And I answered our questions regarding the "Neo-Nazi" mention and the "creative insults" question. Not to mention that there's nothing on Gamergate controversy that says "this group is evil". There is a statement saying what they've done is misogynistic which is a statement supported by like 75% of the citations on that article so I don't know why people constantly compare the Gamergate article to the articles Hitler, Commodus, the KKK, and plenty of other people or groups considered morally "evil".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of your response explains why the mention of Neo-Nazis in this passage is at all relevant:
    In The Guardian, Jon Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis, it almost exclusively attacked "others" and those it sees as "biased", it has hit lists of undesirable journalists, and used military-style hyperbole. He also said that any attempts to engage with GamerGate was seen as an act of provocation while silence on the matter was seen as hostility. He also said that when The Escapist tried to get a balanced piece from people on both sides of the argument, the male Gamergate interviewees were "eager to provide and flesh out a mythology that rationalises hatred towards the feminist/progressive element in games", leading Stone to compare them to Rush Limbaugh and Richard Littlejohn, while any female participants sought anonymity. He also compared them to the men's rights movement in that they sidelined any discussion on sexism for which they may hold a form of responsibility, and instead make themselves out to be victims.[96]
    The bolded part could be completely removed and it would do nothing to change the meaning of the other parts of the passage. You seem to be arguing that mentioning neo-Nazis is relevant because the source connects it to groups like neo-Nazis infiltrating the Gamergaters. But the Wikipedia article provides no such context, instead it provides a thoughtless list of negative tidbits culled from a source with no indication of importance.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it can't be removed. It's a key part of Stone's point that GamerGate is being co-opted by fringe groups to push their own ends, taking advantage of the fact that GG has no organized leadership or objectives which could steer it away from political extremism. The Guardian is one of the most respected English-language news sources on the planet and an indisputable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "a key part of Stone's point" that is never presented in the Wikipedia article. All Wikipedia does is state there are known neo-Nazis who are gamergate supports, an obviously inflammatory salacious detail, and the only time Stone mentions neo-nazis is in this one line "Marching under the incredibly vague banner of “journalistic ethics” allows bona fide neo-nazis to hold hands with ticked-off customers and claim common cause.". He could have replaced neo-nazis with any other extremist group without changing his message; the fact that he mentions neo-nazis is hardly a "key part" of Stone's op-ed. All Stone is arguing is that anyone can march under their banner due to its vague goal, and what Wikipedia has instead reported is simply that "Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis". There are obvious differences between how Wikipedia and Stone are presenting this: Stone uses it to highlight a point which could've been highlighted with any fringe group, Wikipedia mentions it in it of itself. Besides this nobody has still addressed the fact that the article is a coatrack of unnecessarily inflammatory quotes.AioftheStorm (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, some may say certain specific GamerGate concerns about ethics in journalism are fringe or not (can you really call it fringe when numerous major outlets adjust their policies in response?), but the view that ethics in journalism is a major or predominant concern of GamerGate is hardly fringe. Numerous sources, including ones cited in the article, agree that GamerGate is about ethics in gaming journalism. Some are fully sympathetic, others see that as being overshadowed by harassment, but there is really no way anyone can look over the entire body of sources and come to the conclusion that agreeing with GamerGate is akin to believing the Earth is a square. It is a minority view, but not a fringe view. The majority view is definitely not that somehow these concerns are just a smokescreen, though there are some sources presenting that view. You would not get that from reading the article in its current state, because editors like Tarc have been allowed to run wild. Best way to describe the majority view would be, basically, that people feel any legitimate ethics concerns they have are overshadowed by harassment. Honestly, whatever the Arbs intended when they allowed Tarc certain unstated exceptions for posting at ANI, I am pretty sure "gathering a posse to edit war and canvass a discussion where I am involved" was not what they had in mind. Pretty sure such a use of ANI was actually the opposite of their intentions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a major predominant concern of Gamergate, but their concerns are as a whole fringe unto themselves because outside of the "Patreon" clauses put forth at Kotaku and the Escapist and Polygon, there was no actual corruption to speak of. They just added the clause to just make sure that these idiotic complaints ledged against the people involved won't happen again. There obviously is corruption in video game journalism, but it's not coming from any personal relationships between indie developers and any people writing on Kotaku or Polygon who may have sent them $5 on their crowdfunding campaigns.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The editor-in-chief of Destructoid resigned over some questionable activities on GameJournPros dude and you actually fucking know that shit too since you at one point reluctantly added it to the article. Sure, that sort of stuff is not getting widespread coverage and when issues GamerGate does discuss get covered, such as Shadow of Mordor or the Aussie Gaming media stuff, GamerGate is rarely ever mentioned by these outlets, so you obviously know it is not limited to Patreon donations. On another note, why the hell are any of us discussing this at ANI again? What admin action is being requested?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It was also removed from the article for BLP reasons seeing as issues weren't confirmed. And Gamergate didn't break that story IIRC. And the administrative request is to deal with editors that demand that the NPOV tag remain despite common sense on Wikipedia saying otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You are wrong about GamerGate not having anything to do with that, but leaving that aside, how exactly is an administrator supposed to do something about those editors or the tag? Tarc claimed most of the people who objected to removing the tag were SPAs, but all you have to do is look at the names I mentioned to realize that ain't gonna fly. Is he calling on admins to choose sides in a dispute and enforce it? Are we now using ANI to address content issues? Seriously, what the hell are people agreeing to above? That is not particularly clear to me. Looks like Tarc is just trying to rally an army behind him to push his position in a content dispute and the others are signing on for the task or is just looking to get an admin to make a supervote.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      They're supposed to uphold Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when the editors themselves cannot or will not. The NPOV tag does not belong on the article as a way for the gaters to say "WE DISAGREE WITH THIS" when there are no valid complaints regarding the neutrality of the page, particularly when so many administrators and editors have been extensively disagreeing with the actions of several established editors pushing a POV under the guise of seeking neutrality as well as the various obvious single purpose accounts (that is brand new accounts created to stir the pot) and accounts revived by Redditors and the 4chan to 8chan exodus to get past the semi-protected status. But we have no real rule on this, at least not until ArbCom actually decides that Gamergate is worth their time and the concept of "zombie accounts" gets written into Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Except, the tag is being kept because there are various disputes regarding the article's neutrality that are not resolved. Some of them are long-running issues that have never been resolved. The only reason the article is in its current state is because you and a group of other editors have spent far more time than anyone else systematically slanting all material towards your POV then revert as much as possible to insure your preferred version sticks simply because other people tire of dealing with you guys. Once again, why is this an admin issue? The validity of the tag is fundamentally a content dispute. Despite what you and Tarc have said, a very large number of established editors with significant pre-GamerGate editing history this year have been objecting to your edits and the attempts to remove the tag. You appear to be either canvassing or looking for a supervote.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The "POV" you claim I possess is the same POV as the mainstream media looking at Gamergate from the outside in. It's the POV that you and several other editors share with the Gamergate movement that has no place on Wikipedia. And no. This "very large number of established editors with significant pre-Gamergate editing history this year" almost exclusively refers to the "zombie accounts" issue. Nearly all of these people have done nothing on Wikipedia in the past 3 months other than push the Gamergater POV. Barely any of them have touched an article that is not in some way related to Gamergate because every time someone tries to get something done on the article the clarion call is sent out to r/KotakuInAction and /gg/ to keep everything in the status quo and hope that they get rid of the people that they disagree with through whatever vague attempts to game people into being so fed up with them that they get banned. There are so many more people in good standing who are established editors who are here more often and most of them are administrators who are looking at this dispute and finding it so impossible to get through because of the constant disruption happening from offsite that is only being enabled by the editors effectively on their side. That's why they're exclusively looking to discredit myself, Tarc, TaraInDC, TheRedPenOfDoom, and NorthBySouthBaranof and not giving a shit about anything editors like you or Tutelary have done. That's why there's a thread on /gg/ right now imploring people to go through my over 200k edits looking for anything that they can feed to Retartist to use if the arbcom case gets accepted. Why they've gone to ED and Wikipedia Review and Wikipedocracy to find whatever they can against me. Why they brought up banned users I had had a hand in getting rid of who released my old emails or other personal details that had no reason to end up on any website. It shouldn't go this Hubble Deep Field deep but here we are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The "POV" you claim I possess is the same POV as the mainstream media looking at Gamergate from the outside in. It's the POV that you and several other editors share with the Gamergate movement that has no place on Wikipedia.
      You don't understand NPOV, it is not to select the POV of the right/mainstream/winning side and reflect that and remove the other sides POV, it is to have a neutral POV that doesn't apply value judgements to any of the sides.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The "neutral POV" is one that completely discounts one "side" of the "debate"'s very arguments for existing. Gaters are no different than people going "Grassy Knoll" or "Obama is a Kenyan".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The neutral POV isn't whatever POV you think is correct. Flat-Earthers are obviously wrong about their views, but an NPOV article would a)Report their views, b)Report the contradicting view of all known science, c)Not adopt the condescending and incredulous tone that most people have when discussing people who believe the world is flat.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Except Gamergate controversy isn't an article about the Gamergate movement, as denoted by its title.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I am just going to stop addressing this shit. The arbitration request is open and evidence from the past week will be provided if necessary. Sadly, you and Tarc do not even seem to get that you are digging a hole for yourselves with these remarks. P.S. Auerbach.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appending "Controversy" to the end of anything suffixed with -gate is a redundancy, and it was only done here because Gamergate was already the name of a type of ant. The fact that you think this article isn't about GamerGaters and doesn't need to report their beliefs illustrates how badly it needs a rewrite, and the importance of the NPOV template at the top.AioftheStorm (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      "GamerGate" the movement doesn't meet WP:GNG as much as "GamerGate" the controversy surrounding the movement does. The article is not solely about "GamerGaters" so there's no reason to frame any information in the article in any way that legitimizes their causes at any stage of their history because the world at large doesn't believe them. The article can contain their claims as to being all about ethics in video game journalism but that's not the majority view point on what GamerGate has become. The reliable sources used in the article depict GamerGate as an anti-feminist backlash in video game culture rather than any sort of valid consumer movement and that the claims of ethics (whether it be pointing out alleged corruption in the video game media or the demands that video game reviews be more objective) are not valid or are being used as a front to further the campaign of hatred towards the women in video game development or the feminist critics who dared to speak their mind, no matter how many times they can say that the person who sent the shooting threat to USU was some "Brazilian clickbait blogger" or deny that anyone in their movement has been involved in any of the publications of addresses and phone numbers or the constant harassment and death threats sent to people. Multiple people completely uninvolved in video games journalism have made these distinctions. And there have been multiple people who have identified that the various talking head heroes of GamerGate are a bunch of right-wing pundits who have had nothing to do with video games before but have had plenty to do with anti-feminism. "But ethics" is a meme now because no one takes the demands of Gamergate seriously until someone has to call the FBI to report extremely specific and violent threats. All of this is supported by the sources in the article. Except maybe the "Brazilian clickbait blogger" bit because I don't think any reliable source has actually covered that but it is a constant point of contention on /gg/ when they have to complain about Sarkeesian.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close please, this is clearly a content dispute. There is already a talk page discussion about the removal of the tag, and (apparently) there is no consensus to remove it. Please note I am completely uninvolved about GamerGate, I am just tired to see on daily basis inconsistent and sometimes frivolous GamerGate threads at WP:AN. Cavarrone 09:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I'm aware this is the first thread in at least a week because that was when the general sanctions were put in place. And "no consensus to remove" is inorrect because the people arguing for retention have no guideline or policy based reason for retention. It is being used to say "We don't like how this article depicts our side" when their side doesn't have a majority view point on the matter as stated time and time again. Perhaps this is a content dispute, but it needs an administrator to end it seeing as multiple uninvolved editors, one of whom was an administrator, all attempted to remove the tag based on their understanding of the events ([132], [133], [134], [135]) and all were immediately reverted ([136], [137], [138], [139])—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree This is an attempt to create a false consensus in a less viewed part of Wikipedia, this discussion belongs on its talk page, as it was placed before, and time and time again, there's been NO consensus, and there's a real concern about NPOV Loganmac (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree There is NPOV problem and every source, no matter how reliable, is labeled "fringe" or "unreliable" unless it supports a particular narrative, then the source is "okay" for that purpose. Tarc, for violating Arbcom sanctions and forum shopping should be topic banned at a minimum based on the general sanctions as applied to the topic. Amping up the drama should be dealt with extreme prejudice. The tag should remain until consensus is reached which has not happened. --DHeyward (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with DHeyward. There are too many marginal sources in the article. It doesn't matter what they say or who they support, anything less than the highest quality mainstream sources should be removed. I'll put a list on the article talk page presently. aprock (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with too many marginal sources. Lines like this one from the online-only "Paste Magazine": "In Paste magazine, Garrett Martin suggested that any concerns about ethics in journalism were merely a cover for attacking women, even if some sincerely believed otherwise." It directly contradicts other sources that state that gamergater's legitimate concerns are drown out by misogyny, by now stating that they they have no legitimate concerns and are all about misogyny. And what even are their concerns? The article never mentions them, because according to editors here the article is about criticism of gamergaters and not gamergaters and therefore their views don't need to be presented. This article is literally nothing more than a disparate collection of criticisms of gamergaters culled from op-eds, and serves only to highlight the fact that our site is unequipped to handle controversial topics.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources have been discussed on the talk page. The removal of content based on a small but persistent group of editors has created the NPOV issue and is the exact reason why NPOV tags exist. The contant discussion is extremely long and that should be the first clue that there is an NPOV problem. The whole NotYourShield meme was created out of this. Everyone in touch with reality knows this is the case but the current narrative removes this perspective based on arbitrary interpretations on the realiabilty of sources. It's dubious at best and deceitful at worst. WP should not be a social justice cheerleader nor should it be a shill for gamer viewpoints. It's currently biased as a social justice cheerleader whence the NPOV tag. The one constant theme in discussion is acknowledgement that other prominent viewpoints exist but because of bizarre interpretations of policy, they can't be reflected in the article. That's an NPOV problem. --DHeyward (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please actually identify specific "arbitrary misrepesentations". Yes, there are a bunch of rabble that repeatedly appear chanting the mantra "UNFAIR! BIAS! POV!" But, no one is, as is required for the NPOV banner, identifying specific instances in the article that are actually bias. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's on the talk page. Are you unaware on the shear volume of talk pages comments? Are you unaware that sites like "gawker" are acceptable for on narrative but deemed unreliable for another? That's the convoluted logic on the talk page that justifies the NPOV tag. We cannot summarize the volume of talk arguments here. It's a POV problem that is obvious by the shear number of talk page comments that challenge NPOV with no compromise or collaboration. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what immediate admin action is needed here. I'd appreciate it if Orangemike could keep an eye on the page and talk page discussion (as we have a shortage of uninvolved admins), but I don't think there's anything here which looks like an "incident" Protonk (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Protonk: The admin action requested is a determination of whether or not there is a community consensus for whether the conditions for placing/removing the tag have been met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support removal of tag. Tags are supposed to be for actual problems with articles, not for stubborn but fringe groups to register their continued disapproval with the correct application of Wikipedia policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointless !vote to keep tag The neutrality of the article has been disputed so many times. It's just short of I believe...uh...an insane number. But this !vote is pointless because you can't vote on content. And specifically administrators trying to use their tools to endorse or deny content I think is a big step too far; and a dangerous precedent. Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I've hit on a brainstorm of why there is the consternation on this article, and recognizing that there are two different types of POV here: the one that is coming from the proGG side that would want the article to more reflective of their side - something we absolutely cannot do given the sources - and the writing style POV issues that myself and others have pointed out. I have proposed an idea of rethink the structure of the article to make it 100% clear that the article primarily about the controversy over the harassment, and not as much about the "controversy" that the GG movement wants addressing; with that clarity in the setup of the article, there is absolutely no way we can justify the first POV aspect, and I'm confident we can remove the POV nature on the writing style since we won't be kludging the two aspects together. More details can be found at [140], if anyone wishes to comment. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordination

    I was asked above to provide evidence of lobbying at 8chan. See https://8chan.co/gg/2.html (this will scroll to a later page eventually, of course) where a thread specifically seeks to gather evidence against NorthBySouthBaranof, Ryulong, Tarc, RedPenOfDoom, TaraInDC, Gamaliel, and Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. Another wikipedia thread is here: https://8chan.co/gg/res/478105+50.html.

    But 8chan aside, there is an overwhelming likelihood that this page will be edit-warred indefinitely by GamerGate supporters. As long as they can muster a few editors at the talk page, they can perpetually argue that removing the NPOV tag is not supported by consensus because support for removing the tag will never be unanimous. This will ultimately require a policy decision. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    8chan's GamerGate board talks about stuff concerning GamerGate? Shock.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The sausage making of wikipedia articles is not about gamergate. The targeting of editors is certainly a disruptive tactic. aprock (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I guess I can say finally that collecting on wiki links is a 'disruptive tactic'. (No literally, that's what they were doing. Though they kind of got carried away by taking screenshots of Ryulong's Twitter and trying to submit or aver that is valid proof.) Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    For the sake of clarity, this is the new thread. "WP ARBCOM GENERAL" I'm merely monitoring it for links. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Close per WP:DR policy - stop the spillover drama over a content dispute tag

    • Propose close as beyond scope of ANI per WP:DR, section 4. The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). This request was started by an editor under arbcom sanction and should have been WP:BOOMERANGed immediately and closed so dispute resolution can occur. There is no action that is immediately necessary on a 3 month dispute. Close and salt gamergate content disputes. --DHeyward (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And.. what do you want the admin to do? - This is WP:ANI, these kind of things should be handled on the article's talkpage. In my opinion I would go ahead and even say that the article should be fully protected until a consensus is worked out here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Mdann52: You were predictably and almost immediately reverted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the restoration (eg removing the tag) per this close decision. --MASEM (t) 07:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Close is absolutely and positively gaming the consensus policy

    One user cannot close this heavy, hard hitting discussion because apparently 5 'agree' and 5 'disagree' votes is now a consensus towards the 'agree' side. When did we started getting into this? WP:ANI cannot be used to deal with content disputes, and for the 'No discussion ongoing on talk page.' Are you freakin' serious? Check out the archives and archives and the just recently, the NPOV dispute section and the like. There was absolutely on going discussion so I've reverted such a close. There is positively and absolutely NO CONSENSUS to remove the tag in any formality. More on his close, he also reverted the tag before his close, citing WP:ANI...before he closed the discussion based on the false premise that there was no active discussion. Tutelary (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And I have restored the close; you're clearly involved in this controversy and should not be unilaterally undoing a close merely because you disagree with the outcome. Consensus is not !voting, and all consensus decisions must fundamentally comply with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disagree with this closure. Discussion at the talk page is clearly ongoing, consensus over there is overwhelming right now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1) it's !notavote. and 2) mere claims of "bias" without identifying specific actionable instances where the article is not representative of the mainstream sources is not a valid rationale for the tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tutelary: As for the timing issue, If you are going to bring up a 2 minute gap between me removing the tag and saving the close, that is stupid (the difference is actually due to an edit conflict if I remember correctly, or I may have just forgotten to click save, realised my error, then completed it). As I've mentioned on my talk page, leaving a tag in place that is clearly having no effect is like tagging an article for notability while at AfD. In this case, there should not be a tag in place, as discussions keep breaking down and starting up. As and when there is a serious discussion into this, then this may be worth revisiting, but only when a NPOV can be shown, which IMO as an uninvolved editor prior to this, it has not. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    115ash at Asian American

    Article:

    Involved editors

    Editor 115ash, has continued to attempt to change the lead section and infobox of the article Asian Americans against the established consensus built in 2012. The editor has been asked to stop, and has been invited to discuss changes to content on the talk page on multiple occasions, by more editors than just myself. Continued editing without significantly engaging in talk page discussion is seen by myself as disruptive editing. An attempt to resolve this at WP:DRN was rejected.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And I would note that the DRN was rejected because 115ash has not participated in the talk page discussions - their refusal to discuss(or belief that as soon as they have made a comment they have consensus for their position) is an issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well consensus can change but it looks like it hasn't really. I agree that changes to the introduction and the pictures at the top of the page (which I imagine can be quite contentious) while ignoring any actual attempt to justify their editing is disruptive. 115ash needs to either engage in actual discussion and attempt to compromise or sanctions until that point is made may be required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, I participated in the talk page. 115ash→(☏) 13:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @115ash: no, you left single sentence statements on the page and then re-instated your preferred version of the info box, despite no other editors on the talk page agreeing with you or your proposed version. That is not "participation" and certainly not following consensus.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @115ash:, the editor in question has not provided a policy or reliable source based reason for the changes in the infobox. The editor was shown the archived consensus building process which lead to the current state of the lead and infobox, after the editors changes, the editor was explained the reason for the current state of the lead and infobox, and continued to change the lead and infobox to the format they preferred.
    If changes are requested, discuss it. Thus why I kept referring the editor to WP:BRD, instead the editor continued to edit against consensus.
    As I stated in the talk page, there is a consensus to add opposite sex ethnicity representatives to the infobox, but not to expand the infobox past the 9 largest ethnicities within the scope of the article, and the three different political individuals.
    Consensus may change, and I had stated what would be the case if the ethnicity of Nepali Americans had consensus to be included in the infobox (a population of 59k)(a mere fraction of the 3.79 million Chinese Americans, or 3.4 million Filipino Americans) on 5 November. Yet the editor in question continued to make changes to the article to include a Nepali American in the infobox (in place of a Japanese American).
    As stated in the talk page, this is WP:UNDUE.
    Therefore please stop editing the lead section and infobox. Please discuss requested content changes on the talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf

    This editor appears to be a WP:SPA. Can this please be checked?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, I just changed some images. As regards Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf", WP:CHK can check it. 115ash→(☏) 09:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Block request, Aschell10

    Moved to a more appropriate venue. Amortias (T)(C) 19:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user, Aschell10, has persistently been vandalizing articles over the last several weeks as shown in their Contributions list. For example, [141][142][143]. This User has also been warned repeatedly on their Talk page. Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 11:22 am, Today (UTC−8)

    For future refernence the place to report vandalism is thataway. I've moved the report there as turn around time is faster. Amortias (T)(C) 19:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, many thanks. I was not aware of that Noticeboard. Much appreciated! --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Preppy12 and IP accounts on Christian Serratos

    This account and a few IPs that all geolocate to the same area (presumably the same editor) have been repeatedly removing all prose references to a TV show this actress had a recurring role in. There has been no good rationale given, either in edit summaries or on the talk page, for removing what is arguably her breakout role. Instead, there have been bizarre personal attacks on another user (1 2 3) against User:Greg Fasolino who has obviously not made any of the edits this user speaks of. There are also disingenuous edit summaries given for removing the contested information (1 2). I considered just going to AIV for a block and semiprotection, but this edit was genuinely helpful, albeit with another bizarre accusation in the edit summary, and if my suspicions regarding the user and the IP accounts are correct, was likely caused by himself. Also, the article was semiprotected after the first barrage of IP edits and these restarted about a week after the protection expired. Perhaps some sort of rangeblock is also in order? If this is a matter felt to be handled at AIV I'm happy to go there instead Cannolis (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Preppy12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also made this edit, in which they claim that they were "assigned" the page.--Auric talk 00:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely, but maybe it's a school assignment? In that case, this should be referred to the education program noticeboard somehow. Epicgenius (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtful, given the very strange personal attacks that have been made and the counterproductive edits. I'd think that anything posted under an educational program would be seen by his/her instructors. Cannolis (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he's posted a rambling post on my talk page (diff) in which he refers to "her team". ('now he takes things down that her team places up) and uses the plural "us". I think this is starting to look like a competence issue. --Auric talk 13:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Could there also be some sort of COI or paid editing concern? The assigning, team, and "us" pieces make it hit a few alarms in my head for a shared account of some sort that is possibly being paid and/or has a COI. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?)

    This user has been here since April 13, 2014 and has already racked up quite a few warnings (see User talk:Djcheburashka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)). As of recent, they've been generally disruptive. Actions include:

    User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault (see this edit, edit, this edit, this edit, this whole NPOVN mess, edits on False accusation of rape, edits on David Lisak) as well as financial crimes (e.g., this BLP proposal, edits on Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin).

    I won't say they haven't made constructive edits, but their recent actions have garnered the attention of a number of editors. But the editor history on their talk page speaks volumes. I would at the very least suggest an IBAN with Roscelese and a TBAN on all things sexual crime related (as that's where the most disruptive behavior has occurred). But honestly I get a big WP:NOTHERE feeling and think a site ban might be in order. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    They seem to have a desire to drag uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese[154]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Some more reading, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#User:Djcheburashka, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Page protection... and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Harassment. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban. The disruption in areas related to women is self-evident, but the user's behavior at Dark figure of crime is also illustrative, and additionally, his harassment of various users (including stalking and canvassing) is something that there's no reason to think will not happen again in other topic areas. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban. I too thought an iBan would be enough, but I no longer think so. Only a community imposed siteban will do. They lack the ability to see that their behavior is the problem. They lack "behavioral competence". Their behavior is very much like the blocked User:Worldedixor. They could be twins. A huge timesink, with denial and lots of blaming of others. This comment of mine, while written to Worldedixor, applies here too. I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor. The inability to process and accept advice creates huge problems. Both of them need to be sitebanned. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response This is a bad-faith request by a pair of editors who engage in improper tag-team editing with a third, User:Roscelese. After I found serious sourcing problems with a page and tried to discuss them on the talk page, and R refused to do so or allow editing, I started a POV discussion (properly). R then reverted the POV page repeatedly, causing me to ask for protection and administrator intervention. In fact, it was me who requested the protection on those pages so the "edit war" would stop and the dispute resolution process could proceed. The retaliation for that is what brought us here.
    There are a lot of accusations here, which should be addressed, and I apologize in advance that because of the shotgun approach above I need a bit of length to respond:
    I do not have a "bone to pick" regarding sexual assault. It is true that after a decade practicing law, when I see someone say that the false-reporting rate for 'any' crime is 6%, it makes me laugh my coffee out my nose. We're discussing this about sexual assault only because that crime has political implications, and wherever there's politics there are extremist academic claims alongside the mainstream discussion. (To preempt the inevitable misogyny allegations: My view is that rape is probably underreported more than most other crimes, but also probably falsely reported more than most other crimes. One reason is that rape laws are very complex, and people often believe they've been raped when, under the law of the jurisdiction, they have not.) Anyway, when I saw stuff on the page that didn't make sense to me, my response was to go into detail, read the sources, and try to improve the page. I thought my edits and proposals should have been relatively uncontroversial since they were quite moderate -- expanding the discussion of sources, putting things in chronological order. The vehemence and nastiness that followed is part of why I suspect bad faith -- something I did not raise until the nastiness had gone on for an extended period of time and involved multiple personal attacks.
    EvergreenFir became involved then. She and R use tag-team editing that page and a number of other pages.
    There was no edit war on Dasha Zhukova. I and others revised the page over a period of time after opening discussion on the talk page and soliciting comment. The page has had a not-very-often vandalism issue where periodically someone will drive-by and without comment try to revert the page to the preceding form. A few nights ago an editor (one not otherwise involved here), claiming to be fixing honorifics, brought the page to the preceding form. (I find behavior like that to be curious, but that's a topic for another day.) I reverted the changes and asked the user to open discussion on the talk page and seek consensus if he wanted to change the article. That's when Calton, who had no prior involvement with the page but had made a series of nasty comments on the discussions about the Rosceles issue, showed up to unrevert my revert. That's straightforward disruptive editing, and I left the template along with an explanation of the page's history. I invited Calton, if he cares about the page, to raise the issue on the article talk page. He declined. I also invited him to explain to me why he felt my disruption template was improper, and offered to self-revert if he had a good explanation. He declined again.
    Regarding whether I have a "bone to pick" with financial crimes - well, I suppose that is true in a sense, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject of financial frauds. My edits to these pages Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin, were generally adopted, usually after raising the issues for consensus and discussion on the talk pages. Early on I wasn't as good about that, but I've gotten better. I've also made a proposal regarding WP:BLP and convicted felony fraudsters, because I think there are special issues that arise in fact-checking fraudster biography claims. Many of my other edits on these pages involved removing pointless cutesy biographical detail sourced only to the subjects' memoirs.
    The actual edits that this is about concern pages where sources have been misrepresented in favor of a study by David Lisak. Lisak, during his now-over career as an academic researcher, published studies claiming, among other things, that 16% of men are confessed rapists, 9% of the men on college campuses are "serial rapists," and 8% are child molesters. The edit to David Lisak that they object to, is that for the lede I want to use Lisak's own description of his occupation from his website of his occupation. Described on this site as a "leading researcher" in his field and expert who helps prosecutors, in fact Liskan has no affiliation with any research institution -- he was rejected by the academy and the courts a decade or so ago. He is now a consultant who gives speeches on sexual assault. A political sector continues to promote his work, and they're large enough for it to not be WP:FRINGE (barely), and that's fine. I don't think it should be marginalized. But neither should Lisak be lionized, nor should the wiki declare that any disagreement with him has been "discredited," as though opposing work, which is the majority of the field, were the intellectual equivalent of holocaust deniers. I think the pages should simply relate the facts, saying what the studies say, what Lisak actually did, and what he actually does. They don't need to take a side.
    I understand that B, E and R disagree with me about Lisak's views. This does not make my participation "disruptive" -- it means issues should be resolved through the talk pages, and if necessary the POV dispute and other dispute resolution mechanisms. I have tried to do that. This is the retaliation.
    Regarding Brangifer: He claims to be a neutral, said any pages where he and R both edited must be incidental and he doesn't know about it, etc. But, see here: Talk:War_on_Women. The substantive issue with that page concerns one half of a single sentence. Another editor tried to take it out as unsourced and wrong. R objected, and bullied him off. I took a look at the sources and realized he was right. I therefore opened a talk page discussion on the subject. (To preempt the bias accusation, my view is that what Republicans were doing on womens' rights issues, which they never really stopped, are bad enough to speak for themselves, but are exaggerated and distorted in the page.) There is a pattern here: editor find a problem with a page and attempt to help. The response (most vehemently from R, usually with support from B or E or both, sometimes others) is a refusal to discuss substantive issues and torrent of accusations of bias and incompetence, threats, disruption templates, etc. Going through some of these, I realized that in some cases, I agreed with the editors who had been bullied-off (in most cases I did not). I therefore have started to re-raise those issues. An interaction or site ban would, of course, allow them to (falsely) maintain that there's a consensus in favor of their version of the pages, again without having to address the issues that led multiple editors to object. Similarly, an interaction ban, where the other editor has touched a slew of pages on topics in connection with their own agenda, would simply prevent someone they disagree with from joining the discussion, allowing the continued claim of a consensus that doesn't really exist.
    If you think I may have been harassive or abusive, I refer you to the comments that Brangifer and Calton have been leaving on my talk page. Nasty, personal, aggressive, pointless --- and neither of them has said a thing about the underlying issues that led to this, which have to do with improper sourcing, POV issues, and a refusal to participate in either the consensus-building or POV dispute resolution process.
    Regarding templates, I stand by every template I applied. Regarding templates for "regulars" -- is that a joke? Even if it mattered whether the person was a "regular," the templates were proper. R has received similar warnings and block threats from numerous editors and several admins for what has been a multi-year career of abusive behavior, bullying, improperly using templates herself to bully and harass other users, violating blocks, and so forth. Mine were comparatively mild. Calton, I haven't checked whether he has, but I'd be shocked if he hasn't considering his self-proclaimed role as Batman-of-the-wiki.
    Regarding the afd for two pages: I realize now that I made technical errors when I nominated those pages and in response to a vote from R that I'd misinterpreted as another improper reversion attempt. Those were my mistakes, and I take responsibility for them, but they were technical in nature, not bad faith. There was a substantive error in one of the requests, though. Because of that and all of the static, I have not re-nominated either page. I do intend to return to them once the rest of this has calmed down and they can be discussed (unless they are improved in the meantime) without all the strum und drang. Both pages have serious writing and lack-of-source problems for years that no-one's bothered to fix. Why did R get involved in this so quickly? Either because she was tracking what I was doing, or because of tag-teaming with evergreenfir; the pages seem to be linked to her forthcoming PhD dissertation.
    Regarding this 'I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor.' from B, I thought we didn't have a hierarchy on wikipedia? We have editors, we have administrators, and we have ArbCom, but that's really it. Editors' work is supposed to be evaluated based on the quality of the work, not the tenure of the editor. Doesn't B's comment really say it all?
    Regarding "hounding" and bringing in others, I have gone through many of R's edits after seeing how she dealt with mine and problems on a few other pages. Most of the edits I looked at seem to be perfectly good. Some of them, on women's rights issues in particular, seem to have real issues. R has had run-ins with a number of people on those issues over the years. Each time, there's a core group (e.g., E, R, sometimes B) who seem to track each other and show up quickly so they can declare consensus. WP:CIRCUS. Editors are not just disagreed with, they're driven off with threats, disruption templates, and accusations. If those editors' views were cumulated, 'they' would be the consensus. It's also true that, where R received certain block warnings from administrators, where those warnings involved conduct similar to what I saw here, I reached out to the admins to ask them to get involved.
    I think that covers it. If there are additional accusations I may pop back in to respond, and if anyone reading this wants sources or links to examples, please let me know.
    Best, Djcheburashka (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Too long, didn't read - When you reply to a post with an absurdly long reply containing personal attacks, remember that you might be throwing a returning boomerang. What the subject has proved with this reply is that he is a combative editor. I don't have an opinion on the original merits yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. I have been watching this editor since they first started editing. I have also been watching subsequent events with some dismay. The only reason I haven't taken administrative action is because I am WP:INVOLVED, having gotten into a content dispute with the editor on two articles from the get-go. I noted early, though, the obvious aggression and distortion of facts. I also believed the editor was on a crusade, although, frankly, I wasn' sure what it was. Others may have a better handle on that based on his more recent substantive edits. In the beginning, he had a problem with an Alabama regulator, Joseph Borg (regulator). Because Borg was mentioned in the Jordan Belfort article, he attacked both articles because he believed too much credit was being given to Borg. As a consequence we had a lovely exchange on the Belfort Talk page here. One of Dj's more choice comments was "I'm taking this out. If I see it inserted here again, I'll give the journalists who cover him a nice complete dossier on the Alabama politician's apparently 5-year-long history of making false claims about the case. Try me." His subsequent behavior has been just if not more intemperate. That said, I wouldn't move directly to a site ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. The diffs above paint a picture of someone who has the rather impressive ability to repeatedly deny the obvious and extensively argue indefensible positions. If this isn't trolling, then it's essentially indistinguishable. Editors should not have to waste time arguing with someone who insists that a sourced article has no citations. The characterization of removing multiple valid votes at AfD as a "technical error" is equally perplexing. I wanted to wait until Djcheburashka had a chance to reply, but apparently, the editor in question still sees nothing wrong with these actions. A topic ban or interaction ban could work, I suppose, but the problematic behavior would probably just continue in other areas. An indef siteban seems a bit over-the-top with no evidence of blatant trolling or sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know who all was responsible for Dasha Zhukova, but I removed three four completely unacceptable sections from that article. BLPlease, people. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually all of them -- I hadn't noticed, but Calton had re-re-reverted it again. The edits by DRmies put it in approximately a similar position to what I and others had done -- actually he took out a bunch of stuff that I had wanted to take out, but I didn't want to go further than we had without more involvement from others. So I'm happy to see the edits. Djcheburashka (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not accurate. You removed one piece recently and did some other editing much earlier. Drmies removed considerably more. Regardless, this does not change my recommendation that you be indefinitely blocked. As someone said somewhere above, not all your edits have been destructive. However, many have, and equally important, your attitude is not suitable for collaborating on this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that Djetc. removed one of the things which were later restored and then removed by me. I went to that article to see what was up with this editor and saw that the blind were leading the blind, at least there. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault", EvergreenFir, you identify with the feminist school of criminology on your user page and that school has very distinct views about false rape accusations in comparision with some other criminologists (Djcheburashka apparently was pushing for another POV). Are you honestly concerned about the user conduct, not ideological differences? It would be bad if it seemed like ideological sniping. To be honest, all the "violations" here are mild except for the two AfDs. Templating regulars or hounding Roscelese to vote keep just like she did on Palestinian stone-throwing are not a reason for indef block. --Pudeo' 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pudeo: he edits on those pages are what brought this user to my attention a few days ago. After the bad faith AfDs, they've moved on to other areas... kinda. I don't mind people with other POVs discussing a page's content. But I think I've shown in the edit diffs that this was much more than that (edit warring, hounding someone related to that page and feminist topics in general, bad faith AfDs, etc.) While I understand your concern, I am perfectly capable of getting along with people that don't share my views (just ask Two kinds of pork). This user is not just someone who disagrees with me. They are disruptive to the point of being WP:NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I accept your clarification and believe it. Although I still think those offences are rather mild given the editor apparently does not have any previous sanction log. If the editor does not engage anymore in what can be seen as hounding or POINTy behaviour, I think indef block is too harsh. --Pudeo' 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose siteban - the evidence provided is weak. A lot of it is legitimate consensus-seeking discussion in a contentious topic area, which is very difficult, but in which the user has mostly kept civil even when other editors haven't. Indeed, Calton and BullRangifer made inappropriately angry, aggressive posts on Djcheburashka's talk (e.g. [155], [156], [157]) and the user did not respond in kind. Their comments, while much too long, show an understanding of neutrality and verifiability policies we don't normally see from newbies. I share some concern that the user is here to right great wrongs - I accept that the user did not understand how to complete the AfD process but a more serious issue is that they felt those articles should be deleted in the first place. I am similarly concerned that they may be wikilawyering our policies to push an agenda, but they have edited in several disparate topic areas and it's not clear what that agenda would be, and we are required to assume good faith unless there is strong evidence otherwise. For the procedural issues they have apologized, repeatedly. They and the other editors involved should be warned to actually discuss their issues politely rather than disruptively and repeatedly templating each other and calling each other names, and Brangifer should be cluebatted for claiming a privilege of authority based on their edit count. Ivanvector (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose siteban based on the fact that this user only has an edit count within the hundreds, and Wikipedia in itself is a rather convoluted and complicated mess of policies. The afd thing is unambiguous that he removed people's comments, but when you are a new person to the topic area of afd, you're probably unsure of how things worked. I believe that he used WP:IAR approach to justify deleting the comments--as he mentioned, he was trying to evade the keeping of a problem page with overt problems. I can absolutely see why he would have that POV. I also believe that in spite of the OP removing comments, the afds were closed out of practice as 'speedy keep' and assumed bad faith on the OP, when that wasn't warranted. The other 'templating the regulars' and supposedly combative edit summaries; I've seen more established editors talk to me in a much more combative way in open view, with no repercussions at all. I see no swearing, I see no outright anger, I see maybe a misunderstanding of what a 'disruptive' editor is and what a 'SPA' is. But I don't believe the evidence waivered deserves anything but maybe a mandated tutor on exactly which policies and guidelines to follow and whether he has a skewed outlook of them. Blocking somebody indefinitely because they didn't know all the wiki syntax and etiquette is kind of harsh, however maybe a 1 month topic ban (and then a block if it continues into other areas during that time) would be warranted. At this time, however, it doesn't seem so much to warrant an indefinite block--which is the last resort in any sort of conduct issues. This is attempting to shotgun a fly instead of using a fly swatter instead. Tutelary (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support IBAN with Roscelese I think there is a call for this but it would be in excess to indef them. They are a new user. Perhaps a warning could suffice and we could point out to them where they can recieve help such as the Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:Adopt a user.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I weigh the weak evidence against DJ with them trying to draw a user that doesn't like roscelese into this dispute. If this isn't canvassing itself it certainly seems to me to violate the spirit of the Canvassing rules. But yes I agree that would be a good idea to see what Roscelese views on this are.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I wouldn't object to an IBAN if that's all we can get out of this discussion. But my first interaction with this user was a week ago and since then he's stalked me to various places in the encyclopedia, harassed me on my talk page, blanked my discussion comments, and canvassed other users against me. That's not evidence of a problem he has with me, that's a behavioral problem. Do you really think that that won't just happen to the next user who disagrees with him, and the next? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I do object to an iban if the effect of it would be to confer ownership over the pages at issue, which I think is what is being sought. I have not "stalked" or "harassed" Roscelese; in fact, I think the record of our talk page diffs shows the opposite. All of this arose when R refused to abide by the consensus or POV dispute process, then (with evergreenfir) commenced an edit war over it, and so on, which are issues R has had in the past. A lot. EvergreenFir participated with her in that initial edit war. WP:INVOLVED I followed dispute resolution and consensus procedures and sought community and admin assistance when I saw the edit war brewing, and tried to freeze things so that the process could proceed. The POV dispute resolution process should have been, and still should be, allowed to play-out without interference, harassment, retaliation, canvassing, tag-teaming, abusive template-adding, bullying, threatening, retaliation, or disruption. That's it! Djcheburashka (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The power not to interfere, harass, retaliate, canvass, tag-team, abusively template, bully, threaten, retaliate (more), or disrupt, was always inside you. We all would have loved if discussions could have proceeded and consensus could have been built without any of this, but it was your own choice to behave poorly that prevented that. I recommend that you recognize what you've done, decide not to do it again, and possibly even apologize. (Although I'll note for the benefit of other readers that Dj evidently considers his own opinion, opposed by 4+ other users, a "consensus.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Roscelese, I tried to discuss these matters with you reasonably on your talk page, on mine, and on the POV dispute page. You reverted, deleted or ignored at least 5 of my attempts before this became an "edit war." Can you point to any diff, anywhere, where you attempted to engage me in any conversation or discussion about this, or responded to anything I said other than to declare whatever matter closed and threaten me?
    By the way -- if you now agree that there is no consensus regarding the original pages (even if you're miscounting), then we're done here. Because you're then admitting that the POV template should be on the pages in question; that your conduct regarding the "edit war," the POV dispute, the "warning templates" left on my page, and so on, on your part and EvergreenFir's, were all violations; and that the conduct you claim was harassive on my part (i.e., complaining that the repeated reverts and threats were disruptive) was actually proper.
    This ban proposal will be over soon, and we will then move forward. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the extreme projection in this comment is useful to note. If any constructive users are interested in talking to me about this issue, I'm reachable, but I don't see a point in continuing to coddle this person when he continues to deny and defend his misbehavior and show every intent to continue it. Hit me up if you need me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INVOLVED does not apply. Evergreenfir is not acting as an admin here but as an editor, further is evergreenfir an admin? If the record shows the opposite surely you can show how the record shows the opposite. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serialjoepsycho: Not admin, just reviewer. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reviewer of course of wikipedia per WP:RVW, but right now and during this dispute where you have taken part have you acted in your capacity as a reviewer or have you acted in your capacity as an editor?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean "involved" in a technical sense -- I just meant, she's involved in the underlying dispute. This did not, as she claims, "come to her attention" looking at pages. In fact, as I recall she fired several of the first edit-war salvos. Sorry if my use of the link was confusing as to my intent. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So you didn't mean involved by the in the wikipedia definition of the word involved that you linked to but you mean the general definition. Well that's great. The fact the they made edits or fired salvos or what ever doesn't disprove that they were looking at pages that they were looking at pages before they stumbled across your disruption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at this users talkpage shows a whole host of articles tagged for copyvio problems. They just revert the bot notice from the article in question (example). I don't know where to begin with this to be honest. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reduced the Taraj article to a stub to remove the copyrighted material. I did the same for Trial on the Street and Kianoush Ayari (another article where the editor remove the bot notice). An admin might need to revdel the previous versions. I had a quick look through their edit history and there doesn't seem to be anymore obviously copyrighted material apart from Fish & Cat which is already tagged for speedy deletion, though I might have missed something. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did miss a few. Copyrighted material removed from At the End of 8th Street, Hush! Girls Don't Scream, Shahab Hosseini and Cinema of Iran. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I revdel'ed the edits at Kianoush Ayari. If others need it, you can ping my talk page. I'll be on and off Wikipedia all day (at work), but these are easy enough to clean if caught early, like this. As for the behavioral aspects of the case, I'm hoping the user will come here and explain, or be explained to. You might try a stern warning regarding copy/paste copyright/etc on his talk page. Sadly, many new editors never "get it" and end up getting blocked because they can't get beyond the idea that anything you can copy is ok to copy. Dennis - 2¢ 14:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both. Hopefully they'll learn from their mistake(s). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has now recreated the previously speedy deleted page Fish & Cat as Fish & Cat (2013 film). Copyrighted material was removed by Reddogsix [158] then more was readded by Irmovies [159], which I have now removed. Dennis, or any other admin who is about, could this user now be blocked please. They are clearly not getting the message. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Hi In the have me been insulted here, simply. But you do not understand your personality and human effort Brigadier human character into question. I just tried to get better, but you do not see. I've compiled source. No copyright Freedom here is, I work hard and I am positive...Irmovies (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You've just reinserted a copy and paste portion of text from IMDB to the very same article you were told not to. WP:CIR. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically all your article space edits today are re-adding the copyright text, or recreating articles deleted for copyright issues. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis Brown - This user is now just re-adding all the reverted copyright text, despite the number of warnings on their talkpage not to. WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDNHT apply. Appreciate if someone can block this user, and quick. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed. MER-C 12:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you block Camelbinky for determined personal attack please

    No action taken. Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Camelbinky (talk · contribs) put in a personal attack in [160] on 7th November, I removed it, they stuck it in again in [161] and another person removed it. Today they stuck it back in again [162]

    Could you block them for a while thanks so they know that sort of thing is unacceptable. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    At no point in the history of Wikipedia has anyone ever been accused of a personal attack (legitimately) for simply telling another editor to stop doing what a very well known essay WP:DICK tells you not to do. Wikipedia discussion pages are full of people telling those that get bitey to stop. At no point was anything personal about Dmcq said. I didn't call him a dick, I said he needs to stop acting like a dick and linked that to the appropriate essay.Camelbinky (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Dmcq, I won't ping you since you seem to disallow that, but I find your response to Scottperry a bit asinine. I see nothing blockable in Camelbinky's remark, though I do appreciate Eric's attempt at civility policing. Can we move on and find something better to do? Motion to close this thread. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Camelbinky, I felt your language was a bit harsh, but nothing blockable, especially not the link. I agree with Drmies, so I'm closing the thread. Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I suppose then you pair then don't mind me saying that what you say is typical for fecking eejits. Mind you I didn't say you were fecking eejits, just that you act like them, and I'm sure you wouldn't mind me repeating this a few times over a week or so. More to the point what I said to the OP of that thread insulted nobody, it told them it was not a good idea to raise the same subject in a whole lot of different places, the place they were raising it was inappropriate, and I said to them exactly how to go about doing what they were trying to do. I see nothing asinine in what I said and if you could say how I should have responded better please be constructive and say how. As to pinging there is no point raising people's attention specially to a place they are already contributing and when the response is not special to them. Responses should address the subject and not people in most cases, putting in pings for people implies a private conversation where there is none. It should only be done where the person may not be looking but probably would want to see.

    I see the lack of action over personal attacks as destructive of Wikipedia. If people want that sort of crap there are plenty of stupid forums on the web for it. Somebody with a bit of intelligence will very often just leave a place where they are treated like that, they have plenty of better things to do with their time. Dmcq (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sandstein: Bullying

    First, let me provide you with some intorductoyr remarks about where this incident has arisen from. I made several edits to the page Game of Thrones (season 5), and a few other of the actors pages citing a fansite for the show I fekt the site would be fine to include as the site's predecessor was included in previous years, I soon learnt that this was not the case, but I still argued it because I felt that if one was Ok, the other would be too, I now know this to be wrong, but at the time I didn't.

    Only one user took particular umbridge at these references:Special:Contributions/Sandstein. I was eventually given a warning from Special:Contributions/Sandstein, which I accepted, although when I tried to convince him of my point of view rather than acknowledging my points, which I think woud have been the appropriate thing to do to defuse the conflict, he accussed the site of being "trash". I was absolutely furious about this, as I felt that however 'reliable' the source may, or may not be, this was not the kind of behaviour i expected from an administrator-someone I should be looking up to. [[1]] "This is, in Wikipedia terms, absolute and utter trash in terms of sourcing, and if you continue to add such trash to articles you will very likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

    I now acknowledge that I made a huge mistake. Rather than letting the situation calm down, I edited more pages with the source. I deeply regret my actions, although I fet it was, in part, due to how Sandstein had behaved in the first instantce. This led to an arbitration enforcement request, which was overseen by Special:Contributions/EdJohnstone. As I realised I had made some big mistakes Icame forward about why I had edited in such a way, and promised I would never use the site agaain. As you can see Sandstein was very dubious of my account, and didn'tt really listen to what I had to say, unlike EdJohnstone who gave me a chance.

    [[2]].

    The following day (yesterday) I found myself being linked to this talk page[[3]]. I was immediately accused of undoing my own edits, and using these accounts as socks. I am absolutely disgusted, and upset that I could be accused of such a thing on pure speculation, and conjecture. There is no proof that I have anything to do with it, because I don't. Having someone watch my every move has caused me a great deal of distress over the past couple of days, and I decided that I would refrain from editing Game of Thrones-related articles, because I would get accused of doing something I hadn't done whatever I did.

    And then it comes to today when I received a notification that Sandstein had undone my undo of his edit for the article Breaker of Chains[[1]]. I had made my original undo three dyas prir, because the scene in question is highly controversial, and I thought a neutral statement was much preferred to the aggressive language Sandstein had used.Today I find it has been undone, ostensibly because of my 'disruptive' edits in the past. It seems bizarre that it has taken Sandsten three days t undo my undo, and I begin to wonder if it is because I did not receiive a ban, which Sandstein was hoping for. It seems malicious, and deeply hurtful to undo my undo, without consulting me on my talk page first as to why I had made such an undo (if it wasn't already clear from the edit description.


    Overall I feel that Sandstein is abusing his powers as an administrator as he has a very authoritarian style, and never listened to what I had to say. I accept that I made my mistakes, but as an administrator Sandstein should know a lot better. I now feel intimiddated by Sandstein, and unsure if I shoukd make any further edits at all without receiving repurcussions from Sandstein for thinsg I have not done. I feel he has bullied me, and that in no way imagianble should he remain an administrator of Wikipedia. He has called my integrity into question, and I'm now calling his into question. I will not allow him to bully me any more.


    Apologies if this is a bit of a ramble, but I am so upset about this that I have typed it out as quickly a possible, so I do not break down from all the stress it has caused me, I will ot be bullied by anyone,even if I'm not faultless. I am happy to elucidate all the points I have madePiandme (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Piandme: you admit to understanding that the source is unacceptable, yet you continued to insert it anyway after being warned because you were angry, correct? That's called disrupting to make a point, and it is very unwelcome behaviour. Sandstein's opinion of the site is correct in Wikipedia terms - we can't use it, it's garbage in terms of reliability. That's not a comment on the quality of the site itself, it's simply not appropriate to use as a source here. Now, you've been warned about discretionary sanctions in this topic area. You've also recently been sanctioned for sockpuppetry. It is pretty normal here for other editors and especially admins to pay extra scrutiny to your actions in light of past misdeeds. Only a long history of constructive editing and staying out of trouble can solve that. Personally I don't see any evidence of bullying here. Ivanvector (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for getting back so quickly Ivanvector! I was expecting it to take a lot longer. I take your point on board, and agree with them to a large extent, but the ramifications of my misdemeanours was dealt with as I mentioned. The ony reason I included that section was for some context. The main part of my argument is after this dispute was resolved, when Sandstein accuses me of using socks to undo my own edits, and the frankly malicious undo to the Breaker of Chains article, without trying to resolve the problem first. These actions have crippled me, and left me shaken and hurt. I made mistakes, and i admit to them, but Sandstein seems determined to start up conflict when I had decided to stay away from Game of Thrones articles (which you can see from my edit history), As an administrator he should have known better and that is why I have decided to pursue this because someone like him doesn't deserve to be an administrator, because like me when I made those foolish edits, he thinks his edits are more important than mine. I am very upset about this which is why I came as soon as I saw what he did to the Breaker of Chains article]]. Piandme (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When Sandstein reverted your revert he left an edit summary indicating that he believed your revert was part of your recent pattern of pointy edits. It isn't uncommon for a problematic user's recent contributions to be scrutinized for additional bad edits, and for them to be quickly removed. If you can edit constructively going forward, you have nothing to worry about. I've seen the community come down on problem editors like a bag of bricks, and this is far from it. I would advise you against continuing to revert that edit, though. Speaking from some experience, editors with recent histories of misconduct who come back here to seek remedy against their accuser often find themselves sitebanned. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This unfounded complaint appears to be a reaction to WP:AE#Piandme, where Piandme was warned against, among other things, BLP violations and disruptive editing, such as (as in this case) reverting random edits by me merely because they objected to my warning. I'm not sure that they are here to build an encyclopedia.  Sandstein  11:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a request. Sandstein, Piandme, could you maybe talk to each other - away from the noticeboards - and tell each other what you are afraid of and/or angry about, and what you expect of each other going forward? You both seem to have concerns about each other, and they both seem in good faith. I see no reason why you couldn't work this out together. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cancina5645 makes advocacy for including original research

    User:Cancina5645 has stated upon his own user page "This is Wikipedia, and we can accept original research, because we know it is true if the individual did the correct research." This would be in itself an act of defiance, but he also practices what he preaches, see e.g. [163]. He has been warned long ago about about this, see e.g. [164]. He claims that he joined Wikipedia in 2009, so he should be familiar with the WP:NOR requirements. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what should be done about it, but something has to be done, I am beginning to see a pattern of inserting original research and even defending it as the right action. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We permit people to advocate for things not currently in line with consensus; if that weren't the case, consensus could never change. See {{User:Jeandré du Toit/DatePref}} or the various userboxes that say "IP users should have to register before editing", for some examples. I assume that your talk page link refers to this edit, wherein Cancina5645 supplied a nonexistent ref name, perhaps thinking that it had been used. This obviously isn't a behavioral problem per se (it's easy to make this kind of mistake), and anyway plot sections in literature articles are weird, as apparently it's normal to permit these sections to be simply summaries of the books.
    In other words, judging by what you've provided, I see no reason for sanctions. However, I'll say something different if you can supply diffs demonstrating original research or other problematic actions. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.83.189.188 edit-warring, possible NLT

    Edit-warring by

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

    at

    2 bore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Was originally unexplained blanking of content, headed for a block as simple edit-war/vandalism (and warned by multiple editors as such), but now has asserted:

    "Copyright, Trademark, Patent violations. Wiki nor any users have permission to use deleted Photos or data."

    when removing a GFDL image and numerical data or other objective factual claims. I noted that:

    "facts (data) are not copyrightable; image is free-licensed (GFDL)"

    Because they aren't (stated multiple times at WP:CFAQ); and that's the long-standing tag on commons:File:2-Bore Cartridge.jpg. In response, another revert to his preferred version (without that image and data), explained as:

    "I'd check with your counsel DMacks. Regardless, Mr. Dingley's edits are not based on fact or any mastery of the subject matter."

    That's a legal threat IMO (even original claim is too?--he's not asserting ownership of them, merely accusing us of violating various laws). But regardless of his new claimed basis, WP editors are not required to be experts, merely to cite sources, which his disputed content does. That leads us back to edit-warring at best. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I also notified Andy Dingley, as he was specifically called out in relation to possible legal wording in the editor's comments, but not all the other editors who merely reverted him once as a simple unexplained-blanking concern. DMacks (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What the heck is an "enigmatic historical two bore"? [165] --NeilN talk to me 04:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the editor's grievances are, they have slammed well past WP:3RR, maybe when their block lifts in 24 hours they can explain better what their issue is. They clearly have no understanding of copyright/licensing but I doubt whether they even perceive that to be an issue, rather it's more likely an attempt to try and win get their way. Mfield (Oi!) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A 2 bore is a very obscure super-sized firearm. There is a report of a Victorian one (a report that isn't beyond challenge as to accuracy) and a handful (literally just two or three) modern gunsmiths who have made them on the basis of, "because they can". These have good evidence for them, albeit the sources are a little on the WP:PRIMARY side. A "biggest shoulder cannon ever made" is also an obvious magnet for fiction.
    I don't know what this IP is after. At first I thought they claimed such guns didn't exist and were merely fictional. Now it seems they're claiming to be the owners of trademarks and design rights to the real weapons and "defending" them from exploitation by WP. They may also be simply childish / mad / simple vandals. Without some better hint as to which direction they're actually coming from, it's hard to know how to answer them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What a mess

    Matt200055 has made some unusual edits, had been warned and the situation was apparently settled. However, I noticed edits to some of the same articles from AntiMatt200055. I somehow believed that Matt200055 was blocked and using an obvious sock to evade the block and opened a sock case. Recognizing my mistake, I undid my reverts of AntiMatt's edits, CSD'ed the sock case and place a note on the two talk pages.

    Matt has now state both accounts are his, with AntiMatt being a kind of "backup" account, in case his other account is hacked. I do not think this is an acceptable reason for a second account, but that is easy enough to resolve.

    Jeffro77 disagreed with my second thoughts and removed the deletion notice from the sock case and made some fairly pointed accusations on Matt200055's talk page. I tried to use "helpme" for an admin to step in and address this, but -- duh -- needed to specify "admin helpme". (Having corrected the tag, I haven't heard back.) Now WilliamJE is apparently upset about an AN/I I was involved in here. While WilliamJE was blocked, an anonymous editor started the AN/I case in his defense. I mistakenly believed the IP was WilliamJE. That hurt his feelings. (Apparently, the IP was a sock of a different blocked user.) WilliamJE has joined in on the talk pages about the current issue, seemingly in a delayed response to the February AN/I and sock cases.

    Now Pinkbeast has made a rather cryptic comment about 162.157.225.132 at the sock case. As the IP's comments have been hidden, I really don't know how this fits in.

    1) The sock case does not seem to be necessary. Unless there is some acceptable reason for the second account, I think it is merely a matter of Matt abandoning the AntiMatt account and possibly a note there. If there is something hidden in the IP's history or something I'm missing, I could be wrong. (There is a note of an AN/I case on the IP's talk page, but I don't see a case anywhere) 2) Jeffro77 probably needs to step back from Matt a bit. 3) I have no idea why WilliamJE's comments would be in any way helpful in this situation. I removed the comments as personal attacks (unrelated to the current situation and clearly assuming bad faith: "SummerPhD likes making Sockpuppet allegations that both lack evidence and are totally wrong.") WilliamJE asked me to bring it here, but I am not here for that reason. Whatever.

    Any assistance in resolving this FUBAR of mine and the resulting cluster---- would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. It's not particularly complicated. The ANI has been archived. The archived discussion is linked at the sock puppet investigation. It explains the relevance of th IP editor. Will explain in more detail when not on mobile device.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, [[166]]. Searching the archive for "162.157.225.132", I didn't find it. My bad. I looked at [the edit] and (obviously) connected the timing and a substantial A ha edit to Matt. I didn't notice it was Jeffro's page. Warnings to Matt at the time (all of 4 days ago) were appropriate. I still think his secondary account (while unusual) is a misstep based on ignorance of our policies. YMMV. If anyone feels continuation of the sock case is necessary or any further action is needed re Matt200055 = AntiMatt200055 = 162.157.225.132, have at it. I feel it is not a major issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's probably not worth continuing the SPI since the editor subsequently confirmed the named accounts are both his (albeit with an unlikely explanation), and SPI investigators will not confirm IP users as a matter of policy. It's quite clear that all three are the same editor, dispite the editor's asinine challenge to 'prove it'. A further warning about retributive editing and attempting to game the system is probably in order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Summer can't keep his facts straight plus falsely accuse people of socking. I wasn't blocked at the time the ANI case he links to above was started. Secondly, within the last month he started another sockpuppet investigation that proved to be wrong. Here it is[167]. Yesterday he accuses me of personal attacks because I point out his blundering and reverts posts of mine to another editor's talk page. His conduct speaks for itself, please note his response to an administrator here[168] after he was advised to say sorry and there should be talk of WP:BOOMERANG before he accuses another editor falsely of sockpuppetry....William 11:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Summer cant keep his facts straight..."? Let's start with "her". My mistake, you were not blocked when the AN/I case was opened. It had been lifted several hours previously. The Fortherecord23 sock case was "fairly obvious", but failed after a check use.[169] I do not in any way regret starting that. If you'd like to talk about a boomerang for a sock case from early February, please do: This would be an appropriate forum for that. The talk page of a completely uninvolved third party would not. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayurveda

    John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has imposed 0RR on the article, in response to some edit wars. Regardless of whether there was a problem, 0RR is absurd in potentially pseudoscience articles, as unjustified claims cannot be removed. Hence, I applied full protection to the article. If the 0RR not an arbitration enforcement remedy, I would revert it to 1RR myself, but John hasn't specified, and I don't want to get into that mess.

    I propose that the restriction, if a single admin is permitted to add restrictions, be changed to 1RR, and anyone blocked for a 0RR violation be given an apology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, John also imposed the restriction that there should be no major changes without consensus. That is probably a better choice of restriction than any revert restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I also propose that the article be reverted to the state it was at when the 0RR restriction was imposed, with any edits made with consensus reinstated. I doubt any edits were yet made with consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There were many edits made after consensus.[170]-[171]-[172]-[173] I also think that we are nearer to resolution, it may take a few days, but things are going well. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think things are going at all well. The "anti-Ayurveda" editors except QG are intimidated from commenting on the substance of the article on the talk page. (QG should be intimidated, as I can't figure out what he was blocked for. He apparently can't figure it out, either.) All other comments are on the failures of 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of editors said they were no longer watching the article because 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no consensus for those edits, or at least no more consensus than for adding the bald statement "AV is generally considered pseudoscience." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 0RR for a fringe medical topic is not a great idea; as anybody who watchlists this type of article knows, pretty much every day some drive-by editor will add some kind of claim to one of them that cumin cures cancer or somesuch. If bogus health information is locked in place on Wikipedia by ad hoc rules, then that's a poor show. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "zero-revert" restriction is a monstrosity in principle and pretty much never a good idea at all, as it unilaterally gives an advantage to people who insert tendentious stuff, and makes cleanup of sub-standard edits nearly impossible. I'd strongly support lifting this thing. What could work instead is a set of "slow-down" rules, such as: (a) before any (non-vandalism) revert, it is mandatory to first explain the need for the revert on the talkpage, and then waiting a given period of time (say, 4 hours) before actually making the revert, to allow for discussion. (b) nobody is allowed to make any contentious edit without prior discussion; a contentious edit is defined as any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance of a piece of text in such a way that any reasonable observer would expect it to be unacceptable to editors on the other side of the dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably better than what I suggested. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IPs in 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis

    In the past few months, a user (very likely the same person) has been making repetitive disruptive reverts on the pages 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis and People's Democratic Reform Committee on the same contents, which are the following:

    The edits that have been reverted by the IPs were reasoned, and have achieved general consensus among us editors of that page. The editor has not specified the reasons for his or her edits. Warnings have been issued to the editor, I have also suggested the editor to use the talk page. The links are listed below:

    Around 5 or more reverts have been made in 2 months, which makes it not fit as an edit war. Another problem is that the IPs change over time, so I am unable to block the editor. The IPs are:

    • 180.183.129.73
    • 180.183.129.161
    • 180.183.130.167
    • 185.56.163.164
    • 180.183.245.59

    As you can see, the IPs have a very similar number pattern, and also do the same thing. It is most likely the action of one editor.

    If you require more information, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you in advance. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=633521020"