Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive840

Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron

Hiya, earlier this month, User:JohnValeron promised to check all of my edits; he stated: As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article. This comment was made due to a soon-to-be-explained misunderstanding, as well as his lack of knowledge about what is contained in RS regarding the subject matter.

My edits are followed so closely that yesterday I was unable to fix my edits as I developed a new section, running into 3 edit conflicts as he somewhat frantically made changes to the work seconds after I hit "save page". I asked him to give me some space, due to the edit conflicts, to which he replied Truthfully, Petrarchan47, as an editor you are a butcher. If you'd do a half-decent job I wouldn't have to correct so much...In my experience at Wikipedia, your ineptitude is singular.

In my experience at WP, small technical errors like those he pointed out are fixed quietly by others, or discovered quickly by the offending editor. Usually when I add new content, it takes a few edits to get all the glitches out. I've never been faulted for this before, let alone called inept. Regarding the drama and various issues he brought to the Snowden talk page yesterday, today he does not seem keen to explain himself, saying he "doesn't respond well to badgering". He does not engage on his talk page, either.

He has also made a comment about "our Hong Kong editor" but will not explain who he is speaking of, how he knows this editor's location nor why he is bringing this information to the talk page.

(Quick history: the Snowden page has been quite a hotbed of edit warring since December. John Valeron came in about half-way through and we don't actually have much history between us, so I am not sure where this level of hostility is coming from.) petrarchan47tc 04:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (*edited at 5:17)

• Another questionable comment was added today in the "quid pro quo" section below: [Petrarchan47 is] the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. This outrageous claim was apparently based on the fact that I thought the date was May 2cd rather than the 4th. petrarchan47tc 07:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It is 100% unacceptable to refer to someone as "a butcher" or "your ineptitude" - no matter the quality of your edits (which, by the way, you need to use the "Show Preview" button a little more in order to avoid issues because they are somewhat poor). There is also a fine line between validly using the "show contributions" of another editor, and wikistalking - and John appears to be on the wrong side of that line the panda ₯’ 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Because this will be likely used against me in the future, would you consider amending your comment to reflect whether you checked a selection of my edits, or as I assume, is your comment ("somewhat poor") referring only to this one section/incident? I accept that it may have been an off-day, and there were more glitches than usual, however, one could interpret your comment as a general statement about my editing, so I just wanted to clarify this. petrarchan47tc 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I appreciate your input, but please let me provide some background. Although Petrarchan47's preceding post describes the page Edward Snowden as "a hotbed of edit warring since December," she has lately attempted to sanitize her own central role in these hostilities by portraying herself as having "sought peace over all else for the last few months."[1] However, as I replied to her post three days ago, "The notion that you are a peacemaker at the Edward Snowden article or its Talk page is preposterous. You are resolutely proprietary and consistently combative."[2] An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out. Day in and day out, Petrarchan47 makes war, not peace.

Petrarchan47 acknowledges that she and I "don't actually have much history between us," which is true. But the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions, eventually sucked me in. In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling her a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

But, DangerousPanda, you are totally wrong in endorsing Petrarchan47's unfounded and offensive accusation against me for Wikihounding. The facts are these:

• 5 June 2013 – Snowden/NSA story explodes in worldwide news media.

• 00:38, 10 June 2013 – just five days later, I post my first edit to Wikipedia's Snowden page.[3]

• 14 April 2014 – The Washington Post and The Guardian are jointly awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the Snowden/NSA scandal.

• 17:10, 20 April 2014 – six days later, having noticed comments in online social media mistakenly asserting that Glenn Greenwald won this prize—which is awarded to news organizations, not to individual journalists—I became curious as to whether or not Wikipedia's editors had recognized that distinction. Visiting the Greenwald page, I discovered otherwise, and posted appropriate edits to clarify the matter.[4]

• 17:14, 20 April 2014 – after finishing my Greenwald edits, I proceeded immediately to the Wikipedia page for Laura Poitras, Greenwald's closest collaborator in the Snowden saga, where I executed similar edits to clarify that Poitras, like Greenwald, did not personally win the Pulitzer prize.[5]

• 20:36, 21 April 2014 – I likewise edited the Wikipedia page for Ewen MacAskill, a British journalist who also collaborated with Greenwald & Poitras on the early Snowden reporting.[6]

My editing of the respective Wikipedia page for each of three journalists closely associated with covering the Snowden scandal was a natural outgrowth of my longstanding interest in Snowden, dating back to 10 June 2013.

Yet Petrarchan47 now smears me with a spurious charge of Wikihounding for doing something innocuous and purely coincidental to her own contributions to two of those three pages. (She has never edited the MacAskill page.)

This, DangerousPanda, is 100% unacceptable. I am not guilty of Wikihounding, and you are wrong to say so. JohnValeron (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you're not guilty of wikihounding, but right here, in this very thread, you accuse Petrarchan of "making war, not peace" and referring casually to "the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions" for which you provide no evidence. An apology is nice, but you undermine the presumption in your good faith by making such statements. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, please advise: what evidence would you accept of Petrarchan47's edit warring since June 9, 2013, when she first graced Wikipedia's Edward Snowden page? As I wrote above, "An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out." Did you bother to familiarize yourself with that history before pronouncing me guilty of Wikihounding? Given the quickness of your response here, and considering the large volume of edits to that page over the past eleven months, I seriously doubt it. JohnValeron (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

So your position is that people commenting on ANI threads have the burden of proving the allegations made in them, whereas the people who make those allegations don't? They can just make accusations without a shred of evidence (such as a history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one)? That's a new one. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, as a first stab at submitting the evidence you demand, I found three pertinent comments by user DrFleischman, posted earlier this year at User talk:Petrarchan47, relating specifically to Petrarchan47's unfounded accusations of POV pushing at the Edward Snowden page (emphasis added):

• I believe that Petrarchan truly does feel "batted around" but that is not a reason for him/her to accuse me of "high school girl behavior" and being here to "play games" rather than to "write articles." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow Petrarchan's history with me and others you'll see we're way, way, way beyond AAGF territory.

00:46, 6 February 2014

• [replying to user Gandydancer] We're talking about Petrarchan's conduct here, not mine. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are universal policies/guidelines that apply regardless of whom you're dealing with. I think I'm on safe ground saying that you've been spared from Petrarchan's wrath because he/she sees you as having a similar POV.

04:50, 6 February 2014

• [addressing Petrarchan47] Sure, I'll give one example, the one that led to your insistence on me answering this question. In your response to some of Brian Dell's (apparently good faith) arguments you failed to address most of his arguments beyond, "Please stop POV pushing," and in the same comment you wrote, " [I am officially 100% EXHAUSTED by Bdell555.]". I found your conduct unacceptable, and I believe many or most other Wikipedians would as well. Your near constant sighs and groans (literally) about being too tired to deal with your critics and your near constant accusations of POV-pushing seem never-ending despite my repeated requests that you stop. You clearly have a tin ear. I'll say it one last time, and then, as you request, I won't edit your user talk again (except for mandatory notices).

21:47, 6 February 2014

Coretheapple, as I continue gathering evidence of Petrarchan47's edit warring and often toxic relations with her fellow Wikipedians, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth, as you did in your preceding comment by stating my "position" in the least accurate way possible so as to ridicule me. JohnValeron (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are just accusations against this editor. Doesn't prove a thing. I've been accused of everything up to and including kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Do you feel I should be extradited to New Jersey? Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Doesn't prove a thing." This from one of Wikipedia's most notorious inquisitors when comes to COI allegations. You may be sympathetic to Petrarchan's POV, thinking her McCarthyite anti-COI campaign is consistent with yours but are you aware that she goes a step further with her beware infiltrating government agents line? This after Mastcell had already tried to get her to back away when she was trying to finger Wikipedian Dr. Fleischman as a federal agent? Maybe that's too much bad faith assuming even for you, @Coretheapple? In any case on April 8 Petrarchan went 6RR in less than two and a half hours on the Edward Snowden article edit warring with JohnValeron and I and John and I let it go rather than take Petrarchan to an admin noticeboard thinking she'd be more likely to change her edit warring ways if shown mercy. Petrarchan then turns around and takes John to this noticeboard! It's right out of the Parable of the unforgiving servant. We obviously should have gotten Petrarchan blocked at the time since editors like you are making an issue out of "...history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one." We apparently need to change our tactics with edit warriors like Petrarchan and get them blocked as soon as they violate 3RR given what editors like you make out of "clean" block histories.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, since you asked, I'll answer for the record: I wouldn't consign anyone—not even Petrarchan47—to New Jersey. JohnValeron (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, as we wend our merry way through this delightful WP:ANI adjudicating my alleged QUESTIONABLE COMMENTS, cherish this Pearl of Wisdom from Petrarchan47: "The thing is, you can't edit articles around here for very long without coming into contact with hardcore POV pushers and pure, unadulterated jerks." 20:13, 18 February 2014 Submitted here for entertainment purposes only. JohnValeron (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And a comment of extraordinary accuracy. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You certainly have chutzpah, @Coretheapple. You declare in this thread that Petrarchan's got a clean edit warring record when you've participated in edit warring noticeboard complaints involving her trying to get her off. I note one gem of a comment in particular: " Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull." So stressful! Yet Petrarchan bring someone else "in front of the Admin Noticeboard", well, that just's business!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well actually I'm monitoring this board because I'm following another thread, so I dropped in on this one and another and boy! am I being yelled at. Talk about stress. It's terrible. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You could relieve yourself from the stress by declining to nod along when Petrarchan complains of "hardcore POV pushers" given that when IRWolfie noted that Petrarchan was, yet again, trying to battle what she thinks is a "large conspiracy" by "fighting the good fight against US Corporations" and "insert[ing] highly polemic statements" at that time you were all about not worrying about whether there was any POV pushing and just focusing on whether your "wiki-friend" could beat an edit warring charge on technicalities. I'll also note that while you trumpet Petrarchan's flawless block record (and try to justify all her COI attacks), when SpectraValor took her editing to the edit warring noticeboard she got off because the complaint was apparently a few hours stale. Yet another editor started a case on the 3RR noticeboard and Petarchan was found guilty of a 3RR violation but was again let off. There's nothing to be seen here, according to you.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm seeing a lot of mud-slinging directed at her, doing a good deal to prove her original point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You demanded "evidence" Petrarchan is an edit warrior and I pointed out that just within the last three weeks she went 6RR in less than 3 hours and subsequent to avoiding a block there got taken to the edit warring noticeboard by another editor where an admin found that "Petrarchan47 violated WP:3RR". This thread could have been shorter had you let us know earlier that you would be dismissing the evidence you ask for as "mud-slinging" since we would have known your request for evidence was not to be taken seriously.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread would have been even shorter if you hadn't tried to divert attention from the real issues with mud-slinging and character assassination. Coretheapple (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is Valeron's behaviour at the Snowden talk page, and the disruptive hostility. If bringing up anything Fleischman once said is supposed to justify comments made yesterday about my ineptitude as an editor, or the wiki-hounding, I fail to see the connection.

It should be noted that Dr Fleischman, shortly before leaving Wikipedia last month, admitted that Brian Dell's position - the kernel of the 3 month edit war - is untenable. Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell; he came up against the exact same difficulties I had been complaining about. Dr F took BDell555's side immediately in the edit war, and regretted it later. In the end though, the POV warriors, not RS, won the day. The Lede to Edward Snowden now contains a SYNTH account of Snowden's passport/Russia saga rather than the simple account given by countless RS (that Snowden was stranded due to the US' revocation of his passport) because Brian Dell exhausted me completely. petrarchan47tc 22:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc is an ally of yours, is he? That's why he asked Mastcell to do something about you? "Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell" Is that so? Yet after you claimed to be "officially 100% EXHAUSTED" (elsewhere saying my comments were simply too extensive for you to bother reading) Doc's reply was that "This "you are exhausting" talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project" and Doc specifically addressed you.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And MastCell responded by saying that he didn't want to touch the case. The diffs I left show that after more information, Dr F progressed from blindly aligning himself with you, to becoming completely exacerbated as well and leaving WP. Before he did, he told Gandydancer: Btw, you and Petrarchan are probably in stitches over my recent interactions with Brian Dell at Talk:Edward Snowden, ad you have a right to be. Now that Brian's putting me through the ringer I certainly understand your frustration and "exhaustion." Then again while you may have been fully justified in feeling the way you did, IMO that didn't justify you expressing it to Brian, which was inflammatory and uncivil, even if honest. In any case, my reason for bringing this up isn't to justify my involvement; rather, just the opposite. If I had been actively participating in that discussion (rather than passively observing) I would have better appreciated what you and Petrarchan had been dealing with and I probably would have kept my mouth shut. So, in hindsight, I'm sorry for that indiscretion. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 petrarchan47tc 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 may now claim to be fast friends with DrFleischman, but it wasn't always so. A mere six weeks ago she posted this to Doc's user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…."

Sound familiar? Yep, it's Petrarchan47's standard charge of Wikihounding. In March, DrFleischman was "following" Petrarchan47 around Wikipedia due to his "obsession" with her. Now it's April, Doc has made no edits for 30 days, and so it's my turn to stand accused. After all, Petrarchan47 has got to have someone Wikihounding her. If not the obsessed Doctor, then I guess yours truly will do in a pinch. "This is harassment!" Maybe so. But who, pray tell, is harassing whom here? JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can close out this thread by quoting from said fast friend: "Petrarchan47, it is time to drop this cowardly and disruptive witch hunt once and for all."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've mostly been a interested bystander on the Snowden talk page. I'll just comment that this noticeboard is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators. Generally that means you need to ask for something specific, like a block, and give evidence that the requested action is required, for example three warnings on the user's talk page concerning a blockable offense, backed up by links to the offending edits. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced

I generally consider myself to be an editor who tries to avoid all sorts of drama as far as possible. However, ever since I've started editing the Edward Snowden page, it has become very clear to me that this is one of those articles any sane editor would want to avoid at all costs. In fact, I've practically given up trying to make it look more like a biography than a battleground. I don't know what motivates some people to keep pushing a particular POV for so many months and I have to admit I do admire your determination to achieve whatever aims you have here, but I'm fully amazed that you don't even try to hide your POV.

Can we at least agree that labelling a living person as "narcissistic" on his biography, even quoting someone who did so, is extremely unconstructive? But at least this is better than turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm.

Although I think JV is a highly motivated editor, his lack of adherence to WP:BLP and his conduct towards other editors, and more importantly, his general attitude towards the subject of this biography is a serious cause for concern. -A1candidate (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect to what you say is "most important," just what sort of "general attitude" towards Mr Snowden would you like to see? I take it that it would not be Hillary Clinton's--Brian Dell (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, please clarify your second paragraph, in which you link to the same diff for both "labelling a living person as narcissistic" and "turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm." I honestly don't understand how you can construe a single comment by former NSA Director McConnell, reliably sourced to New York magazine, as constituting an NSA quote farm. JohnValeron (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, A1candidate, if my behavior is such "a serious cause for concern," why have you waited until now to bring that to my attention—and in this highly adversarial context? I reckon you just like a good ambush. JohnValeron (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555 - An attitude that is in line with building a biography instead of fighting a battle would be more than welcome. For starters, how about not trying to remove reliably sourced information from Snowden while replacing his quotes with goveernment issued-statements? @JohnValeron - The fact that you use words like "ambush" is very telling of your attitude. Both of you obviously have a POV (you don't even try to hide it), this is something that I've long felt needed to be addressed. I always avoid drama, so this is going to be my last reply. -A1candidate (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, the fact that you stage an ambush only to turn tail and run is very telling of your attitude. JohnValeron (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on edits and ideas, not on editors'. Your comment above verges on a personal attack. Dial it down, please. BMK (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure Edward Snowden Hagiography is enforced

Note: I'm not indenting because my response applies to both the overall section Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron and its subsection What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced. Also, thanks to admin Dennis Brown and user Beyond My Ken for pointing out that my subtitle (obviously a parody of A1candidate's subtitle) should not be formatted so as to appear in the TOC.

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, at the heart of this post by Petrarchan47 to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is what user A1candidate identifies as my "attitude" towards Edward Snowden. In her edit warring over the past 10 months, Petrarchan47 has exemplified the politically correct attitude of blind partisanship in favor of Snowden. Moreover, she has acted as bully and enforcer, peremptorily exercising innumerable reverts to disrupt the attempts of other editors to provide balance. Shamelessly seeking to go beyond that and punish editors who have taken issue with her, last month she targeted DrFleischman, posting to his user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…." Now, having disposed of DrFleischman (who has made no edits at Wikipedia for over 30 days), Petrarchan47 turns her sights on me, taking to this page to foster the impression that I have been Wikihounding. Her success in this smear is evidenced by the very first reply to her initial post, from DangerousPanda, who applied the term "wikistalking" to me.

No doubt the pro-Snowden partisans have the numbers to block and even ban me. But until then, I will not be intimidated. I shall continue to resist all attempts by A1candidate and Petrarchan47 to enforce their hagiography of Edward Snowden. I shall rely instead on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which states in pertinent part, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." JohnValeron (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have glossed over the part about due weight. One person calling Snowden narcissistic does not merit including the term in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, as explained in Wikipedia's due weight policy, "Neutrality requires that each article 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." In determining which viewpoint is significant in each instance, a Wikipedia editor must consider overall context, not just the particular report. For example, if an otherwise reliable but left-leaning, pro-Snowden publication runs a piece that includes 1,000 words of direct quotations from professional partisans such as Snowden lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, offset by 100 words from Hillary Clinton criticizing Snowden, Wikipedia is not required to reflect these opposing viewpoints in proportion to their numerical value. Rather, editors mush exercise judgment. The mere fact that a former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator and First Lady publicly disputes Snowden makes her words more significant than the utterly predictable, canned retorts of longtime Snowden shills, whose unchanging views are already amply represented in Wikipedia's Snowden article.

As for the specific example to which you allude, in the Motivations subsection, we quote former NSA director and current Booz Allen Hamilton vice chairman Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic," reliably sourced to New York magazine. What you conveniently overlook, HandThatFeeds, is its placement near the end of a 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus our paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. In a subsection devoted to his motivations, that focus is entirely appropriate. However, in this context, it is equally appropriate to quote a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations.

Due weight does not require excluding significant minority viewpoints. JohnValeron (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Significance is the key here. Show that Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint, and you'd have a point. As it is, you really don't, and WP:WEIGHT is against you. Hagiography is definitely to be avoided, but so are unsupported POV opinions expressed only by a small number of people. BMK (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint not because a large number of people have expressed it, but because of the prominence of who did express it: a former NSA director and current vice chairman of the firm for which Snowden worked as a contractor and where he sought employment expressly for the purpose of stealing more secret US Government documents to leak. "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," Snowden told the South China Morning Post on June 12, 2013. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago." JohnValeron (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors could choose to quote McConnell because he's a prominent person; on the other hand the nature of his prominence in this case makes him a particularly unreliable source. Specifically, his crude characterization of the psychological motivations of a whistleblower are made in an unavoidably political context: they're certainly not reliable, and arguably unhelpful. We're not required to quote a famous person every time they open their mouths. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Placing McConnell's statement in the "reaction" section would be more reasonable, as it wouldn't purport to give readers special insight on Snowden's motivations. -Darouet (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Darouet, McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is properly contextualized in the Motivations subsection. The reliable source in this instance is New York magazine, not McConnell. He is quoted here not because he's famous, but because he's a former NSA director and current vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton. In both those capacities, he brings an insider's knowledge and expertise to bear on Edward Snowden. To exclude McConnell's viewpoint merely because you personally disagree with it is unsupported by Wikipedia policy. JohnValeron (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and as a former NSA director he's about as neutral about Snowden as an ex-grunt is about the Marine Corps. It's irrelevant that he's quoted by a reliable source, what's relevant is whether his view of Snowden is shared by others without a connection to and history with the Agency. BMK (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. If Wikipedia required editors to quote ONLY neutral sources, we'd have to eliminate every quotation attributed to Snowden's lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, to mention just four of many such pro-Snowden speakers. The article would be reduced to 20% of its existing length. JohnValeron (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that McConnell's statement may be notable: as a reader I could benefit from knowing what the man said even if I disagree. However, McConnell is an overtly hostile party and not a reliable when describing Snowden's motivations, which is why I think his comments fit better in "Reactions". -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Drama and POV pushing

This drama pushes good editors away from the Snowden page. It is aimed at anyone wanting to add RS that implicates the US government in Snowden's 'choice' for asylum in Russia, and essentially anyone who disagrees with the edits of Valeron or Dell.

For instance, John Valerion had these comments about editors today:

• "At 20:40, 30 April 2014‎, User:A1candidate attempted to hijack the editorial process" *
• "Another Edit Warrior Parachutes In - Beyond My Ken thus attempts to backdoor his way into control of the Snowden article without posting a single comment at the Snowden Talk Page...This arrogant, willful behavior even ignores BMK's own admonishments to editors of other articles, whose work he has undone with a warning to Discuss on talk page, Do not revert without a consensus to do so. Clearly, Beyond My Ken is one of those Do As I Say, Not As I Do edit warriors." *

I addressed the now 5-month edit war here, for some context. Brian Dell's friend User:DrFleischman said it well: "There is consensus that "stranded" is reliably sourced and appropriate for the lead." and "When you're disputing an account made by dozens and dozens o[f] reputable news sources, you've got to start asking yourself, are you trying to build an encyclopedia or are you trying to promote a fringe conspiracy theory instead?" More on that is here: Retelling of the passport story.

The Snowden page has been taken over by POV pushers. Here is a discussion for more insight. A1Candidate to Dell: "you seem to be more interested in pushing a particular POV instead of improving the article as a whole. A large portion of your edits appear to be related to Russia, Russia, and more Russia. We don't know for sure whether the Kremlin is behind Snowden's flight, as you have been claiming all along. While I do think it's a plausible theory, it's nothing more than mere speculation." Please see this Snowden Talk section for more.

Today, Dell and Valeron are using Business Insider and their report on a Wikileaks tweet to support their contention that Snowden chose to go to Russia, as opposed to what RS states over and over, very clearly: Snowden was stuck in Russia due to the US' revocation of his passport (RS listed here).

Last week, Snowden's entire accolades section was reduced by John Valeron to this. Here is the talk page discussion where I explain that to cut only his awards, squishing them to two unreadable paragraphs without condensing any other sections, is POV. Valeron says that Snowden's awards "all seem equally unmeritorious". Valeron notes that he does not find the article to need condensing, so his only reasons for this editing are POV, it would seem.

He also removed a quotation cited to Snowden, though his edit summary was: "reword so as to not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Again, the edit serves the US government, but not Wikipedia.

He states: "I am participating here in good faith with the object of providing much-needed balance to th[e Snowden] article, which is overly sympathetic to its controversial subject." When asked to specifically point out how the Snowden article is biased, Valeron never responds. Instead Brian Dell pops in with another long OR rant.

Valeron has become very hostile, and besides admittedly following my edits at Snowden by seconds, looking for any mistake, he also followed me to Laura Poitras supposedly fueled by the need to set things straight: the Pulitzer was not given to her, but to WaPo and Guardian. However both Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman's articles contained the same information and were, until I pointed this out to John, left untouched. Valeron is now {cn} tagging Poitras instead of finding the citations. He tagged "1971"'s release at Tribecca, whilst a simple search finds very good, recent articles about its release.

Brian Dell:

• As recently as April 14, Brian Dell was continuing his edit war, calling cited information OR dreamed up by User:Binksternet and inserting "allegedly" in the Lede.
• Dell continues to push this theme, with the edit summary: ""allegedly" stranded. Legal experts say there is no legal distinction between the airport and the rest of Russia. And no independent journalist verified that he was in the airport transit zone"
• Dell adds "reportedly" to cited information, arguing "supposedly he was stranded. The story does not hold up under scrutiny"
• Earlier Dell declares a Fox news article "demonstrably false" and changes the Lede in this same edit war.
• This is where Dell first appeared with his theory.
• Here is where Dell followed me on this same day to Jimbo's talk page to make some remarks.
• Here is where he followed me to an NSA awareness WikiProject I was working on.
• In this comment at the WikiProject, he justifies making this POV change to the Russ Tice article saying it was done "to more fully inform the reader about the reliability of this "whistleblower." He also states "Over at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Passport I've pointed out the problems with the line that it is the U.S. that has marooned Snowden in Russia, as opposed to Snowden or the Kremlin's own choice. These matters are all concerned with getting the facts right. If you've worked in media you'd know that there is huge popular demand for conspiracy theories." About NSA spying revelations, he states, "The truth is that this charge against the US government has been grossly exaggerated in the media."
• When news broke that there were statements made by some US officials about wanting Snowden dead, Dell had this (predictable) response.

Besides the obvious POV pushing by both of these editors, the hostility aimed at me and others who may oppose or question them needs to be addressed. No WP editor should repeatedly come into contact with this type of behaviour - the aggression is over the top, and better suited for YouTube comment sections. Brian Dell should be topic banned (an IBAN is also a consideration), and an IBAN against Valeron would be very much appreciated. I guarantee the Snowden article and Wikipedia would be better off for it, and would not be damaged in any way by these bans. But I am no expert, the response that would reinstate a sane, peaceful environment at Snowden (read: pre-Dell, pre-Valeron, circa Sep-Nov '13) is likely better determined by administrators. petrarchan47tc 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 has now outdone herself in sheer, malicious perfidy, posting comments that I myself reconsidered and deleted within minutes. Clearly, Petrarchan47 will stop at nothing in her toxic efforts to poison the editorial atmosphere surrounding the Edward Snowden article. JohnValeron (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty fucking ballsy of JohnValeron to accuse me of trying to "control" the Edward Snowden article, when he's made over 100 edits to it in the last week alone (over 300 in the last year), and I've made three edits in total. And to say that I edited without discussion is equally ludicrous, considering that the discussion took place right here on this thread, with his involvement. I suggest that if anyone's trying to "own" the Snowden article, or push a POV into it, it sure as hell isn't me. I also suggest that an admin might like to try to machete their way through the jungle of rapid-fire edits over there to see if some level of protection isn't called for to get things to stop so that reasoned discussion can take place. BMK (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No reasoned discussion about the Edward Snowden article can take place here, on an adversarial ANI where I stand falsely accused and where my accuser is calling for Brian Dell and me to be banned. Any "consensus" about editing Edward Snowden arrived at within this ANI is illegitimate. The regular editors of the Snowden article do not follow ANI. We follow Talk:Edward Snowden, which is where all editorial discussions rightly belong. JohnValeron (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit, consensus is consensus, and it remains so even when it goes against you, and no matter where it takes place. Usually the article talk page is the best place for consensus discussions to take place, but when someone tries to dominate the discussion there it may have to take place in other venues. Besides, you've misread my comment above - if an admin were to fully protect the article - which I think would be fully justified by the volume and speed of the editing there, which indicates knee-jerk responses rather than well-considered action - then the reasoned discussion I was speaking about should take place there and not here.

At this point, however, editors have clearly despaired of getting any balance there while you and others continue to duke it out, and have come here for relief. Having felt the (temporary) sting of your displeasure, I understand precisely what they're talking about - you're trying to browbeat people into submission because you disagree with their POV (or what you perceive as their POV, which may well be mistaken), and that makes your editing as bad as theirs is, if they are also pushing a POV, as you claim. I still think temporary full protection would help, as would your thinking before you act. 04:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, full protection and Admin oversight for a while is a worthwhile consideration. petrarchan47tc 18:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Jehochman once filled this role at the Snowden page. We also spoke in January about bringing the article to GA status. It might be worth checking into these options as a way to cool the current edit warring and hostility. petrarchan47tc 23:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I personally don't edit the Snowden article because, to be frank, my feelings about him are fairly negative. I think that's the best course of action in dealing with a BLP in which one holds a negative POV - stay away. JohnValeron might want to consider doing that too. Coretheapple (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

Wikipedia's due weight policy explains, "Neutrality requires that each article 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." As I pointed out above, former NSA director Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is reliably sourced to New York magazine. McConnell served as U.S. Director of National Intelligence during the period when Snowden was employed by the CIA, which reports to the DNI. After leaving that post, McConnell rejoined Booz Allen Hamilton to lead the firm's intelligence business, and was vice chairman throughout Snowden's brief (less than three months) tenure as a BAH employee. These high-level positions give McConnell's perspective on Snowden significant weight. Moreover, our now-deleted quotation of McConnell provided the only balance to an otherwise self-serving 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. By excluding a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations, you are totally suppressing a verifiable point of view that has sufficient due weight. In violation of policy, you are promoting Wikipedia's unbalanced cheerleading on behalf of Edward Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

McConnell can hold any opinion about Snowden he wants, and can express them to anyone he wants to, but he's not qualified to discuss Snowden's psychological makeup in our article because he has no training or expertise in that area. He can say that Snowden is a traitor or that he's damaged his country or that he ought to be clapped in irons or that he's selfish or immature or whatever, because these are things anyone can say about anybody, but when he says that Snowden is a "narcissist", he's making a psychological evaluation, and he is not qualified to do that, and he can't be in our article expressing that opinion except, perhaps, as an example of people's reactions to Snowden's actions. BMK (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary.com provides two definitions of narcissist:

1. a person who is overly self-involved, and often vain and selfish.

2. Psychoanalysis. a person who suffers from narcissism, deriving erotic gratification from admiration of his or her own physical or mental attributes.

Neither Wikipedia's biography of Mike McConnell nor the sentence you seek to suppress in Edward Snowden identifies McConnell as a psychologist or psychiatrist. His opinion of Snowden as a "narcissist" is not a clinical evaluation, and only pro-Snowden editors such as yourself would so willfully and disingenuously misconstrue it. McConnell is using the term in its popular, not medical, sense. Note that Wikipedia quotes Yogi Berra as saying about baseball, "90% of the game is half mental." Are you going to suppress that, too, because Mr. Berra is not a credentialed mental health professional? JohnValeron (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is showing - I am not "Pro-Snowden". In point of fact I have decidedly mixed feelings about what he did, including my belief that anyone who thinks that their government isn't in some way "spying" on them is a fool, and that such monitoring is, to some degree both necessary and harmless. But you don't know that, because you are, clearly and by your own admission, "anti-Snowden", and because I reverted one of your edits that must make me "pro-Snowden", thus throwing WP:AGF out the window.

I reverted your edit because the guy doesn't have the chops to make that kind of statement and have it appear in a Wikipedia article as a factual reason for Snowden's actions. You want to put in a "responses" section, that's different, the guy is notable and his allowed to have an opinion - he's just not allowed to express that opinion as fact on Wikipedia. You get it? It's the diference between "I think he's a narcissit" and "He did it because he's a narcissist." If you can't see the essential different between those two statements, and the need for the person saying the second one to have the right credentials, then you probably shouldn't be editing here.BMK (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Quid pro quo

Never let it be said that Petrarchan47 does not reward those gallant souls who spring to her defense here at ANI. Vote early and vote often, Wikipedians, for "must-read" commenter Coretheapple as Crony of the Week. JohnValeron (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin attention requested: Can I get an admin to give JV an WP:NPA warning? If nothing else, his serious lack of AGF is worrying. BMK (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your broad argument on the McConnell quote, here, but the last time this came up at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding), I got more or less the same impression John has, although I would have expressed it more delicately. That said: John, knock it off. Wholesale snarkiness will only succeed in getting people to blow you off; there's plenty in Petrarchan's editing history, plainly and dispassionately expressed, to build a case against her. Choess (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Choess, I appreciate your advice, but I am not the least bit interested in building a case against Petrarchan47. As you imply, and as demonstrated by her shameless use of an Editor of the Week nomination to reward Coretheapple for supporting her in this meretricious ANI, Petrarchan47 is her own worst enemy. JohnValeron (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now, isn't this enlightening? Following the link provided by Choess, I just read User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding posted to ANI less than a month ago by User:Geogene. It broadens one's perspective on Petrarchan47's generally antagonistic behavior and her contemptuous hostility in particular to editors who do not submit to her supposed authority. And guess who rushed to her support on that occasion? Why, our presumptive Editor of the Week, of course: Coretheapple. What a magnificent team they make! A true credit to Wikipedia. JohnValeron (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, Petrachan47 and I started to discuss nominating Coretheapple for Editor of the Week back in January February. It was at my persistence that Petra proceeded to nominate him. His nomination is deserved and has nothing to do with this ANI. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Fleischman, before leaving WP last month, tried very hard to build a case against me. He went to people angry at me from the BP (Geogene) and March Against Monsanto (SecondQuanitzation/IRWolfie) articles and found willing participants to help find diffs for an eventual ANI. He asked MastCell and Drmies for help, both said no. MastCell has repeatedly said he has respect for me as an editor, and as for my complaints about Geogene (who eventually took me to ANI), he said: "Back in the day, I used to feel like there was a core of clueful editors who would support each other in these kinds of situations, but most of that core has been run off the site or decided they have better things to do than argue interminably with cranks and agenda accounts."

Geogene was canvassed by Dr F, who still has a list of my wrongdoings compiled, and who appeared to be helping Geogene with diffs for her unsuccessful ANI. Geogene came to the BP oil spill articles (where I met Coretheapple, and whom btw, I had been planning to nominate for months) and began making POV changes. Her biggest grievance was with the tremendously well-cited study mentioned in the Lede of Corexit (in this version). To end the edit war there, I slashed the Lede and removed mention of studies. Geogene, who purportedly wanted to help the Project, and improve the Corexit article specifically, has not been seen since. As was obvious from the start, her efforts seemed focused on removing content harmful to BP. Once that was done, there was no interest in actually working on the article, or WP for that matter. I noted that her appearance and frantic editing coincided with the announcement of BP's Clean Water Act trail. I was asked by other editors not to make such connections unless I have proof of COI, so I have agreed to stay silent in the future.

I do not see how that ANI plays into this one, however. Valeron's behaviour should not be tolerated, and there is no case to be made that it is justified by anything I have done, or by anything that has been said about me. The NPOV requirement for editors is not being met in his case, and I think a topic ban should be considered. Just today he was reverted at James R. Clapper and Edward Snowden for non-neutral editing. * * *

Whether my edits to Snowden have been POV has not been proven, nor has a case been made that the Snowden article is biased. I have put in a lot of time and work on that article, and the atmosphere there has driven away everyone else but the anti-Snowden editors. That has been pretty stressful, and is why I have opened this, my first ANI to see whether something can be done to stop this. petrarchan47tc 18:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Petrarchan47 is lying to promote her punitive crusade to get me banned. The diffs she cites as evidence that "just today" I was reverted, actually date from May 2, 2014. Petrarchan47, who will do anything to get her way, is the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. JohnValeron (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual I don't know what day it is. I am the most unethical editor EVER. John's ever-balanced, non-hyperbolic views will save the Pedia one way or another. Thank goodness we've got editors like this around. petrarchan47tc 18:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously, John, this is the type of "lie" that matters around here. Wouldn't you consider this unethical? petrarchan47tc 00:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to say that the accusations pointed at me (again) by user:petrarchan47 have been going on all over Wikipedia for months now and are harassment. They're also lies. We've discussed this on noticeboards and Petra still doesn't understand what that study is about. Even though I haven't been on here for more than a week, she is continuing to provoke me (with the above). I sincerely believe that there are some serious psychological issues with her involving paranoia and a sense of being persecuted by pretty well anyone that disagrees with her, and we cannot fix those problems here, and which make her unsuitable for Wikipedia. I have no doubt that this will eventually get her banned. That's my say. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

IBAN for JohnValeron

I have seen too many disruptive actions taken against Petrarchan47 by JohnValeron. This behavior should be addressed by IBAN.
JohnValeron was working on the Chelsea Manning biography and the court case United States v. Manning in the summer and autumn of 2013. In late December 2013, he encountered Petrarchan47 at the Edward Snowden biography, at the Sibel Edmonds biography, and at the article about Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Talk page relations were civil at first but by February 2014 the tone was strained, then icy with disdain and hurtful irony: "Wikipedia should permanently lock out all editors except Petrarchan47, whose sole proprietorship would be beyond reproach." By March, JohnValeron was engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND confrontation, trying to get a rise out of Petrarchan47 by referring back to the "sole proprietorship" comment: "I earnestly hope this meets with approval and does not offend particular editors with an aggravated sense of sole proprietorship over this article." Also: baiting Petrrarchan47 with this comment: "...rest assured that the ever-vigilant Petrarchan47 has undone my revisions in toto." At the end of March JohnValeron was accusing Petrarchan47 of having "paranoid fantasies", and insulting her with the term "schoolmarm"—a sexist putdown intended to stifle discussion. The April 8 comment "petrarchan47 has zero credibility" was a gross attack, a poisoning of the well to remove Petrarchan47 from effective discussion. I suggest that JohnValeron should be given an interaction ban with regard to Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, given the admission of POV towards the topic, a TBAN could also be considered. petrarchan47tc 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As wondrously premature, and use of a draconian solution, which rarely actually works. A POV is not a "disqualification" but simply an indication that the person must assiduously work towards compromise and accept that others have differing POVs. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Support If we can get rid of this problem, I will Die happy, This user has committed Personal Attacks against a single target, just remove contact with that target. Boom, done - Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like nothing better than to stop interacting with Petrarchan47. If you could craft an IBAN that did not in effect amount to a topic ban against my editing Edward Snowden, I'd be the first to endorse it. But as a practical matter, it is impossible to avoid this proprietary, pro-Snowden partisan intent upon, as she wrote above, "implicating" the United States Government. Petrarchan47 has singlehandedly made 19% of all 6,106 edits to said article. She has racked up as many edits as the next three most active users combined. She is inescapable and intransigent. Moreover, her domination of Wikipedia's Edward Snowden has long since passed from good-faith stewardship into exclusive ownership, enforced first with haughty reverts and ultimately, as seen here, with vindictive demands that editors who dare to trespass on her turf be banned—under whatever pretext she and her supporters can contrive. Is this any way to run an encyclopedia? JohnValeron (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Perhaps you would like a TBAN to be kept away from editors who you commit Personal Attacks on? Maybe we could Implement Both and Get 2 birds with one stone? Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on editing Edward Snowden per Binksternet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I see no basis for an IBAN or a TBAN on JohnValeron. Certainly he has made some uncivil comments, and for those he should be sternly admonished. But that is no basis for a permanent sanction; an admonishment by an administrator should be more than sufficient, and if John ends up re-offending then the issue can be re-examined. I've also seen no evidence that John has had any trouble interacting with those outside of Petrarchan47 and those defending her, and that alone means a TBAN is inappropriate. At the same time, I also feel strongly that this thread should boomerang against Petrarchan47, who seems incapable of working collaboratively with anyone with whom she disagrees on any topic. Plenty of evidence of that, and she has even been warned by an admin on ANI. (If there's sufficient interest in posting evidence against Petrarchan here, please put a note on my user talk, as my wiki bandwidth is extremely low these days.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE, PLEASE READ: I am deeply disturbed that a large number of my views and comments have been discussed, interpreted, and fought over in this ANI thread by several editors without anyone haven giving me any notice whatsoever. Believe it or not, I still exist despite my current wikibreak. Worse, several of my past contributions and comments have been grossly mischaracterized. I don't want to get into a pissing match about comments made over a week ago so I'll just say, folks, please don't do that again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This IBAN does not solve the numerous issues with Petrarchan47's conduct. She mentioned that I recently "disappeared". Yeah--because I can't stand dealing with her horrible personality any longer. She makes editing Wikipedia intolerable. She ought to be site banned forever!! Geogene (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this thread has now surpassed 9,000 words—far more, in my opinion, than the issue warrants—please let me reiterate something I wrote in my first post here, seven long days and 8,400 contentious words ago.

• In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling [Petrarchan47] a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

I trust the admin who resolves this ANI will not overlook those 42 words, and will forgive my lapse in civility. JohnValeron (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Admin: I'd like to take this opportunity here to ask an admin to administer a short-term block on Petrarchan47 for her COI accusation against me in this thread [7] which is part of a much larger pattern of serial COI accusations against me (see, e.g., User:MastCell's talk page), and in which she actually says that she has been asked by other editors to stop this behavior (but apparently is unable to stop). She continues to break the rules while admitting that she knows she is breaking the rules, I find this absurd. Geogene (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Obvious canvassing is obvious Apparently we should all find it a coincidence that two editors, User:Geogene and User:DrFleischman, both suddenly came back to editing after weeks of absence to come to JoshValeron's defense on the same day. Looking at their contribs, Geogene hasn't edited since 23 April (2 weeks 1 day ago) and DrFleischman hasn't edited since 27 March (6 weeks ago). And yet, like Wiki-magic, here they are within an hour of each other. Methinks someone canvassed via email.--v/r - TP 17:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious canvassing is obvious Well, you're wrong. Of course, you'd have no way of knowing that. Geogene (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course I'm wrong, because if I'm right then you three are now in violation of WP:MEAT for abusive off-wiki coordination. I couldn't possibly expect you to admit such a thing. But the edits speak for themselves.--v/r - TP 18:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, well, I suppose when I logged in and saw that I could have noticed how recently Fleischman's reply was, anticipated your suspicion, and waited a few hours so that you wouldn't jump to conclusions. But that would be guile, now wouldn't it? Besides, even if I had been responding to an email canvass, my arrival time would have been determined by how often I check my email, which is sometimes not that often. My "canvassed" arrival might have happened at any time after I got your hypothetical email, so your "canvassing" theory doesn't eliminate this coincidence so your logic doesn't lead anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis, if you're alleging that I canvassed DrFleischman, Geogene or anyone else by email, that is an outrageous lie, which I emphatically deny. This is a low blow even for you, TParis—the Wikipedia Administrator who famously doesn't give a fuck. JohnValeron (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very much alleging it. And if you think me not giving a fuck is a novel idea that will outrage or shock anyone, you're seriously mistaken. Feel free to share it with everyone. No one...cares.--v/r - TP 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I care. JohnValeron (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. So Tparis may not really be ignorant, only involved in a dispute with JohnValeron. I feel so much better now. Geogene (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been angry for as long as these accusations have gone for months without even an admin admonishment, but this really takes all. A basic understanding of logic should be required before anyone gets the Tools. But for his education, before he decides to solve more "mysteries" I suggest he read Littlewood's Law [8] and the Post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy [9]. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In a discussion on TParis' talk page, I have demanded that he either conduct a SPI or retract his meatpuppet accusation. I don't want him to slink off from his disruptive accusations like he didn't make them. Geogene (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

TP, I don't know what you have against me, but your accusation is completely unsubstantiated and false. You and I have no history so I don't know what your beef with me would be. The fact that an experienced admin would throw out such complete horseshit reflects very poorly on this community and its governance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

All I have against you are weeks of inactivity and then you suddenly showing up miraculously and within an hour of someone else who has been inactive with the claim that it was a cosmic miracle that you both show up to defend John on the same day. Other than that, I hold no ill-will toward you or anyone.--v/r - TP 01:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess it was a cosmic miracle then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Admin attention requested -- I have repeatedly asked User:DrFleischman (here and here) to adhere to WP:POLEMIC by either putting to use or removing his laundry list of my diffs that he is accumulating in his sandbox. He said he was working on a RfU about me, and had low bandwidth suddenly, but would get to it soon. That was six weeks ago. Now he is back, but still refuses to respond to this request. petrarchan47tc 17:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support IBAN for Editor JohnValeron. When viewed as a whole the above AN/I speaks for itself. No editor should have to put up with such vile attacking. In 5 years of reading many,many article talk pages, I have never witnessed such demeaning and bullying utterances about another editor. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and another completely impartial editor registers his unbiased support for Petrarchan47—User:Buster7, who just happens to have been awarded A Barnstar for you! & new WikiLove message from…you guessed it: Petrarchan47. Ain't Wikipedia grand? JohnValeron (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support iban and/or tban. None of us can build Wikipedia alone so all the sources, facts and prose are worthless if we can't collaborate in a collegiate fashion. An unwillingness to cooperate that borders on belligerence is not offset by other contributions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Reliable sources, documented facts and polished prose are never worthless. Collegiality that results in The Triumph of Mediocrity? Now, that's worthless. JohnValeron (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:BLUDGEON is worth a read. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am responding in good faith to the accusations and insinuations against me on this unjustly open-ended and interminable ANI posting. If you are now adding WP:BLUDGEON to the grab-bag of allegations, I deny it and request that an uninvolved administrator render an opinion on this particular point. JohnValeron (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Trolling

When Dr Fleischman, Brian Dell and John Valeron were simultaneously active on the Snowden talk page (Valeron re-entered the Snowden talk page just weeks before Fleischman went silent), User:Jusdafax had this to say:

• I have not edited this article, but have it watchlisted. Petrarchan47 is correct, in my view, when he notes that the article's longstanding stability is being disrupted by parties who appear to have an agenda. I suggest other eyes may be required to get a fair consensus here. I also support investigating further the motives of those parties given the high target value the article's subject has. My hat is off to Petrarchan for standing up to the bullying tactics this page now clearly documents. 1 March 2014

On the Today Show this morning, Glenn Greenwald was asked about Snowden and his asylum in Russia. This information is the subject of most of our talk page activity at Snowden since mid January, and of the edit war to which JusDaFax refers. A quick glance through the last few archives and current page will show this. It will show that I have brought heaps of RS to say exactly what Greenwald did today, and that edit warring and original research by irate and overly passionate editors have won the content dispute by exhausting rational editors. This means the present coverage in the Lede of the simple story is very unclear. In Greenwald's words 3:46:

"He didn't choose to be in Russia, Matt. He was trying to get through Russia to get to Latin America to seek asylum. The US government revoked his passport and pressured other countries and so forced him to be there."

This is supported by the body of the article, but no iteration of this telling (like this version in late January) has been allowed to remain in the Lede.

Much like with the Geogene/Corexit scenerio, I am being fully trolled for nothing other than trying to keep reliably sourced material, clearly worked, in the encyclopedia. Geogene was enraged that I had quoted RS at the Corexit article (re: last sentence in Lede) and after two RS noticeboards, and an ANI about me, left the scene the moment this well-cited study was removed from the Lede. When told that major controversies (like this study) need to be mentioned in the Lede per WP:RS, her final comment at Corexit:talk was to say that we don't need to adhere to all the rules (here).

Dr Fleischman found Geogene and Brian Dell and asked both of them (* *) to help him take me to a noticeboard or RfU, while engaging in a lot of gossip about me on their talk pages. Although this ANI was to address very specific behaviour from Valeron at Snowden, this trolling, canvassing and meat-puppetry needs to be addressed too, or is this tolerated and accepted as the price one pays for editing WP? petrarchan47tc 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

By being allowed to fester unresolved since April 27, 2014—more than two weeks now—this multi-section ANI posting by Petrarchan47 has become a catch-all for every grievance that she imagines has been done to her at Wikipedia. Her latest accusation is "trolling." Yet again I find myself having to deny a spurious charge for which there is no evidence. How much longer will the admins (assuming there are any left who have not already taken sides) allow this neurotic, open-ended inquisition to go on? JohnValeron (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

JohnValeron's timestamp above is darned inconvenient, but I'm not going to wait to defend myself to make sure everyone's placated. First, I find it odd that my disappearance from Corexit is mentioned as if it's somehow sinister. I'm glad we accomplished some things like not misrepresenting the Rico-Martinez study, but I just got fed up with the environment there and left. It's disingenuous of Petrarchan47 to complain about going to the RS NB the second time because she asked me to start a thread there, ostensibly because I could not be trusted (Diffs: [10], [11]). I did as she requested. Note how the discussion played out there, and how it degenerated into her WP:SOAPBOXING her conspiracy theories about the EPA [12]. But I hope that we can move past this and I don't have to interact with her any more, to include her not slandering me here. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Add by edit: Oh, I'd prefer you use the third person pronoun "he" when referencing me. It's really not a big deal, but it makes these threads easier for me to follow. Geogene (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Pattern of reverting edits made on other user's talk pages

User:Katieh5584 has a pattern of repeated reversion in other people's user talk pages, where the edit was OK and not vandalism or a violation of BLP, such as at:

• User talk:Luxinstant [13]
• User talk:Jim1138 [14][15][16]
• User talk:This lousy T-shirt 18 reverts
• User talk:Globalautousa history
• User talk:Castingmind history
• User talk:Laratadelaciudad history
• User talk:2602:30A:2CA3:8290:7D66:9872:96A1:1776 history

This user also reverted my edits to her user talk page, when I warned her what she was doing was wrong. A lot of the edits mentioned above are actually reversions of people removing warnings from their talk page, which is discouraged but allowed on Wikipedia. Also, when I warned her [17] what she was doing is wrong, she continued to edit war [18] on User talk:A_delicious_pot_pie. She was warned by me and FreeRangeFrog 3 times in total, and continued to edit war at A delicious pot pie's talk page. She was, in fact, given a final warning by Barek, and this continuing pattern of talk page reverts against newcomers should be considered under Wikipedia:BITE. Pretty much all of her reversions affect people who are new users, and I think that we need to deal with this continuous use of vandalism rollbacks (using twinkle) on other peoples talk pages, as this may be an abuse on Wikipedia tools. There are many more examples, which I will post if you ask. 123chess456 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand is why @FreeRangeFrog: idef semi-protected her talk page for user request within own userspace, as I thought that admins where not allowed to protect talk pages for that as it prevents newcomers for asking questions, and only protect if consistent attacks are happening to the user. Also, yes I think that Katieh should be notified about reverting talk pages unless the edit is a Attack or BLP violation. TheMesquito^buzz 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind she's autistic, so I think it's a lack of not knowing better, rather than stubbornness. I'd hate to see her lose the rollback because she has made a lot of reversions of genuine vandalism. Perhaps we can explain this rule another way and help her learn?

People were being downright nasty on her talk page/user page. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Meteor Sandwich, she should not lose rollback because of this, rather an explanation of the rules and then if it continues after that, then it should be discussed if she should lose rollback, but i don't see that is needed ATM. TheMesquito^buzz 01:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen Katie do some fine work in anti-vandalism. She shouldn't have rollback revoked this time, even if she's revert-happy. As much as I understand how Autism can make it difficult for someone to know what is appropriate and what is not in certain situations, it doesn't affect her overall intelligence and shouldn't be used as an excuse for things. In addition to an explanation of the rules, I think what would help most is someone working with her to improve communication skills, which she has indicated she struggles with. I am more than willing to assist/mentor her despite not being an admin or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm autistic too, but on the "high" end of the "spectrum"; i.e., I can understand people a little better. I can take some time to try to help Katie, but I'm not sure what she needs help with.

I provided diffs or pertinent links, interested in understanding exactly what Katie doesn't get. Take a look at this diff. The person says: "Cmon, he my friend Irl and i'm just trying to troll him xD #SwagCorp.©" That's kind of a borderline case, I'm not really even sure what it means: not vandalism, not cursing, not exactly threatening, but strange and sounds like it might be threateneing: "I'm just trying to troll him" in particular (I'm guessing).

In nearly all the other cases, a failure to understand Wikipedia:BLANKING. It's policy that even blocked vandals can remove all warnings or notices as long as it doesn't interfere with communication. Most notices are for the user, not the admin: the admin can search through the history.

To specify exactly what should be reverted:

Revert these:

1. attacks that only try to hurt the other person (insults, name-calling, profanity)
2. inappropriate images [19][20]
3. blanking or trying to mess up someone's page
4. deletion notices (speedy deletions, MfD, PROD, etc.) for the page the deletion notice is on. The deletion notice is for the user, and they can remove it. So restoring the notice of Luxinstant's userpage deletion was not a good idea, but reverting someone who removed a speedy tag from their user page is an example of an okay revert.

Don't revert these:

1. nonsense, rudeness, or arguments
2. removal of warnings, block notices or bans, claims of sockpuppetry

Did that clear anything up? Feel free to revert me if I'm not being helpful. I find more information easier to work with, because I have to guess what people mean a lot less. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Katieh5584 ask if you have any further questions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to chime in and add that Katieh5584 has been very helpful at both SPI and COIN in reporting problematic editors. So I support the efforts to give Katie guidance rather than sanctions. -- Atama頭 00:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I second that. Even though Katie isn't new, she may find the Teahouse or other places helpful. We should be gentle rather than hostile, even if editors aren't new. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

comment Note that Katieh5584 has been advised of WP:BLANKING at least once before in 2011 [21], just before she retired for three years over this exact same problematic reverting behaviour. I also think it's bad practice for such a prolific revert button-masher to have a semi'd talk page so she can avoid communication with new editors/IP's. 94.195.46.49 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It would help a lot if Katieh5584 came to this page and responded to the questions people have. In fact, it seems essential. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Either that, or we bring the discussion to her page. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's the answer, XXSNUGGUMSXX. What I can conclude by reading this complaint is that there are problems with some of Katieh5584's edits but that she is a valuable contributor. If she can address these issues on her talk page (and she will participate in the discussion), it can be moved there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since May 10. Wait a little until she gets back to editing. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

fake accounts from selected IPs

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

---

Please research. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faraone Lk (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Odd goings-on

This account and another have created and blanked User:The Bushedranger. I note Faraone lk is impersonating User:LFaraone. KonveyorBelt 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by User:Paeancrime

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

---

Paeancrime is making personal attacks against me and Kndimov. They have called me a sockpuppet of a banned user multiple times[22][23][24]. They have called Kndimov a vandal for fixing citations on an article and restoreing sources.[25] They have also said they were going to take care of me.[26] would someone look into this? GB fan 02:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I was about to do this myself! -- Kndimov (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see my talk page, section "Edits concerning Edward Guiliano". I am called a vandal, my constructive edits are called "shit" and I am told to "shut up and stay shut". -- Kndimov (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

GB Fan and Kndimov are sockpuppets of a banned editor, who is hellbent on keeping the highly NON-NOTABLE Edward Guiliano on Wikipedia. Note that this article has been deleted twice, with its talk page. GB Fan and several other of his socks are editwarring with me--Paeancrime (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I was asking GB to check on sockpuppetry of someone involved, given the history of article creation and user name.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore on the page history of Edward Guiliano, Paeancrime says: "Kndimov agreed with me that GB Fan is a banned sockpuppet" and "kndimov agreed to take back his edits, see his talk page". Dear Admin, I encourage you to Please check my talk page like he says: I never agreed to anything. He is putting words in my mouth and attacking me. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I 'll find an admin who will delete the article and its talkpage third time! no worries.--Paeancrime (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This smells of WP:BLP... - The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The guy is mad and not notable--that is why no reference. He's president of a third class college. Must be deleted--Paeancrime (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a notable claim while it is able to be deleted for other reasons this isn't one of them Dudel250 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That also suggests the Editor has a COI with The person the page describes and is editing with the assumption he just wants the page gone Dudel250 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The page and its talkpage has been deleted twice, and will get deleted again very soon. As I said, I will find an admin who will do so very soon. You wait and see.--Paeancrime (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My Offer: Any admin who deletes the article and its talk page third time gets $300! Not joking. Talk to admins who previously did so! Just put your contact info on your User-page or contact me through email.--Paeancrime (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a competence issue... 206.117.89.5 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) (Former User:Ansh666)

Very much WP:NOTHERE, at any rate. Paeancrime, I don't know if we have a policy on bribery, but we do expect users to play by the rules. If your speedy delete and PROD were declined - and that's what happened, the article was not actually "deleted twice"; you tried twice and failed - you should have nominated the article for deletion at AFD. This will make editors less likely to take your word that the president of a major educational institution is non-notable; you sound like you have some kind of grudge. --NellieBly (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The article has been deleted twice as a WP:G5. I found it tagged as a WP:A7 and WP:A1 and declined those. Then tried to fix the article. After others edited the article then someone brought up the previous deletions, but so far no one has raised the issue of the creator of this article being a sockpuppet at WP:SPI. GB fan 02:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I created a sockpuppeteer SPI since I have no way of knowing who created the first two articles. The CU might be able to move it to the proper user should they match.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Loriendrew, this is becoming fun!--Paeancrime (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Note'''Next Time you Attack a Editor You will be reported and likley blocked, Scarcasm Counts as a insult @Paeancrime:Dudel250 (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

it was created by Sony Chiba1 and Roweltenon GB fan 03:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone just block Paeancrime already. This is just silly. Someone's trolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't threaten me--Paeancrime (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I succeeded twice and will succeed again! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Edward+Guiliano --Paeancrime (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note A report was also made at ANEW reporting Paeancrime (t c) for edit warring at the article in question. I am closing that report as forum shopping redundant without comment on the validity of either thread. —Darkwind (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I overlooked the fact that each thread was opened by a different user. Not forum shopping, but still redundant. —Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is a new stub about the president of a university with nearly 5,000 students in the U.S. and 14,000 worldwide. This is a school that competes in NCAA Division 1. It is not Harvard or Yale, but it is also not a diploma mill. I think that it is highly likely that this person meets WP:ACADEMIC but the proper place to make that determination is WP:AFD not here. Paeancrime has not yet nominated the article for deletion, and instead is resorting to belligerent and combative behavior. I hope that this editor will be advised through this process by others to "cool it" as I have just done, and I hope the message gets through. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked, which does not mean I think this is ready for closing. Sorry, Darkwind, I disagree about closing the AN3 thread, and I've blocked Paeancrime for 31 hours for 7RR. The edit warring report clearly had substance, and nothing much seems to be happening here. Possibly everybody's stunned by the $300 offer. (I'll take it.) If somebody wishes to add more offtime for the personal attacks and other issues here and elsewhere, be my guest. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

:::Correction: NYIT has nearly 8000 (4796 undergraduates) students in the USA (EXCLUDING ONLINE STUDENTS) per USNEWS [27] and a bit over 13000 worldwide.--OppanBambiStyle (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious, and blocked (although if you go by "oldest account is the master" it's Paencrime who's the sockpuppet...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually...looking into this further: OppanBambiStyle was created 00:55, 13 May 2014, and three minutes later created Edward Guiliano; Paeancrime was created 01:02, 13 May 2014 and started attacking the article - but as we can see above they're loudly quacking...so {{Checkuser needed}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Completed - Paeancrime is Mangoeater1000. OppanBambiStyle is  Technically indistinguishable from Paeancrime. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

New sock. Maybe semi-protect? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That one is absolutely a sock, and blocked. Given the socking Paeancrime extended to indef. Need a check to see if OppanBambiStyle is genuinely another, as I'm off to bed... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Pangaman is also Mangoeater1000. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Semi-protected one week while the AFD (which isn't protected) plays out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure what he's up to here - good hand/bad hand socking? - but all three of these accounts appear to be Mangoeater1000. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. A new user creates an article. And then creates a sock account to try to get this article deleted and criticize editors who try to improve that article? Some people have way too much time on their hands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this behavior is a form of WP:BLP violation, pitched to take place at a meta-level outside the official rules. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a new user, Liz. Mangoeater1000 is long term PITA. Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Mangoeater1000. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the This is becoming fun! comment and the $300 offer to delete the article were signs that this was a prank. PITA is right. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Volunteer Marek inserting POV-slanted original research in ukraine topics

Volunteer Marek has been going around the articles relating to the Ukrainian crisis inserting original research and completely made up things supporting his POV while reverting any efforts to change the statements to actually represent what the sources say, while deceptively claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing "misrepresentations" and "original research".

One example is the Euromaidan article where i had removed the claim that "some of the snipers were not allowed to shoot" for not being supported, nor even mentioned, in any of the sources.[28] Besides being original research, the statement made it seem as if only those who were not allowed to shoot were surprised by those who were (ie implying that Janukovich snipers were allowed to shoot and were the ones doing it, something completely unsupported by the sources). However, since such a wording, and made-up stuff, fits his POV he immediately reinserted that claim.[29]

Another example is from 2014 Crimean Crisis where i had removed a whole bunch of claims unsupported by the source [30] [31]. As anyone can see the source [32] does not say anything about any "ukrainian officials", "Refat Chubarov", it being "undemocratic", "hastily prepared", "falsified" or "not reflecting the real will of the Crimeans". However, since the claims made it appear as if there is a widespread belief that only 40% participated and that the referendum was falsified, rather than just one man's speculations about how many participants there could have been given turnouts in earlier elections, which perfectly fits Marek's POV, he promptly reinserted the original research.[33]B01010100 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is sour grapes over the fact that I filed a report on User:B01010100 for edit warring ([34] - s/he got blocked then block was reduced after B01010100 promised to behave, which appears to have been an empty promise) and had the temerity to point out that it's a sketchy-as-hell single purpose account who's arrived recently (?) on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of engagin in some good ol' fashioned WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is over the fact that i'm constantly working to fact-check sources and rewriting the articles to more accurately present the sources but you constantly reverting and reinserting OR for no other reason than that it fits your POV. Besides, even if it were sour grapes, i'll just refer you to Ad Hominem.B01010100 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how Marek's contributions are in any way controversial, and am going to have to side with them in this regard. If you guys have a dispute, work it out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I am not seeing anything here that is concerning, especially when one looks at B01010100's talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. B01010100 needs to stop focusing on Volunteer Marek, and start concentrating on ensuring his own contributions are not becoming problematic. Coming here each time he perceives an issue is not going to go down well. If there is in fact a dispute, a conflict or some grievance about Volunteer Marek which needs to be addressed, the appropriate thing to do is utilise dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I find Volunteer Marek's edits so much POV that it's very difficult to keep assuming good faith. I don't want to look non-neutral, but, frankly saying, I am beginning to think his aim is to add as many anti-Russian stuff as possible and to remove as many pro-Russian stuff as possible. (I'm not trying to deliberately attack him, but I just want to say what I am actually beginning to think after seeing his edits on the Ukraine crisis-related stuff.) IMO his edits can seriously upset any editor who tries to be neutral. And he keeps pushing them in, keeps reverting people who try to stop him. I seriously hope some admin takes a closer look at Volunter Marek's editing patterns. Just look at his edits and think, "1. Did he add something against Euromaidan or something good about Yanukovich or Russia just once. Did he? 2. Why does he like to call people who are against Euromaidan nazis: [35], [36], [37], [38]? (It's, like, the first thing he does in any article.)" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is difficult to take seriously allegations of POV pushing from an editor whose username is "Moscow Connection". BMK (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean that's beyond your ken? See how easy it is to do stuff like that, so how about focusing on content rather than usernames?B01010100 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins will see this Volunteer Marek's edit: [39]. Admins, please, just think, "What does the editor actually do on Wikipedia? Are all of his edits look somehow the same? Is it someone who actually expands Wikipedia, who writes good articles, who actually wants to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia?" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that you guys are warring over the Euromaiden/Ukraine issue and are dragging the drama here. Neither side is in the right here in terms of attacks, but the dispute resolution page is probably the best bet for this discussion, as both sides have rather strong opinions here. Moscow Connection, I think you are going in the right direction, but this isn't the place to do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources (User:Lvivske goes so far as explicitly defending his practice of not reading the sources before reverting[40]), or the talk pages. There were existing talk page discussions regarding exactly those changes, but does he follow the consensus there or even read them? No. If there is nothing controversial about making edits going against the talk page discussions, then why do we have talk pages in the first place? You say to take it to dispute resolution, but WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says to go here, which is why i went here. Where exactly should this be taken then? The issue isn't any particular instance of his edits, but the entire underlying pattern of behaviour, which seems like a conduct dispute to me and hence why i took it here. At this time there is simply no point in making any contributions since if they don't fit his POV they'll just get reverted again irrespective of what the sources may or may not say.B01010100 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. In what you quoted I specifically talked about fact checking, just that its safe to assume if a portion of your sources are junk then the rest likely are too, especially if it's an IP or SP account --Львівське (говорити) 18:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

When an editor deliberately introduces text complete with citations and the citations do not support the text, the citations are fake. If an editor has the habit of using fake citations, then it is not very surprising if people check-by-sampling, and revert all the untrustworthy edits as vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that's not what has been going on. The editor who first removed the text did not introduce any text, and hence did not introduce fake citations, he removed them.[41] This was only his second edit, so he couldn't have had a habit of such things (his first edit was adding a source to a quotation to comply with WP:BLP). Volunteer Marek then reintroduced the fake citations, even though it should be BRD rather than BRR, giving as reason in his edit summary "restore sourced text" even though he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he was introducing.[42] The only thing going against the edit he reverted was that it was made by an IP-user who happened to be based in Russia. Rather than reverting again i rewrote the text to remove the parts that were not in the source and more accurately represent the source [43] (and subsequent edits), as well as using the talk page to discuss those changes. [44] Volunteer Marek then simply introduced the fake citations again[45], completely ignoring both the talk page discussion and the call to read the source first. It seems, to me, that if anyone is making a habit of using fake citations it would be Volunteer Marek. And it's not like this is an isolated incident, it's a general pattern.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if i have misinterpreted your linked comment, but in the context of the discussion where you made that comment it was Volunteer Marek who kept introducing text not supported by the source by reverting the editor who, rightfully, removed it - thereby showing that he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he kept introducing. It was for that i called him out on blanket reverting others without even reading the sources, which you responded to as sometimes being appropriate. I realize now that i have misinterpreted your comment to some degree, but i presume you can understand the misunderstanding given the context.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention at these edits, which introduce Reductio ad Hitlerum-linked car analogy, in violation of WP:SEEALSO (which demands that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant"). Nazi/Soviet events of 1938 and 1940 aren't related to modern Crimean events. Seryo93 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Those who fail to remember history are condemned to repeat it." BMK (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We may add those parallels as attributed (such as in Reactions section), I won't oppose that. But not in See also. And BTW, quote above can be likewise applied to NATO expansion towards RF borders. "Those who fail to remember history...", so I suggest to avoid WP:SOAPBOXing (which, I admitt that, coming from both sides of 2014 crisis) Seryo93 (talk). 06:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Updated 08:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NATO? NATO hasn't expanded since 2009, and Ukraine disavowed any intent to join in 2010. I believe the current brouhaha originated over Ukraine wanting closer ties to the EU, a non-military association. And in any case, if the Santayana quote draws attention to parallels between Germany's actions prior to WWII and Russia's current actions, what is the parallel you're drawing between Ukraine's associations with NATO and the EU and the situation back then? I see none.

Putin seems stuck in the age-old Russian desire to keep a buffer between itself and Europe, either by the conquests which created the Russian Empire, or Stalin's creation of puppet states after WWII. This need for "security" at the expense of the independence of other countries appears to be a long-established part of hard-line Russian thinking. Failing to point out those obvious facts (through citations from reliable sources, of course) would do a disservice to our readers. BMK (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-military? Please get your facts straight. The parallel would be the expansion of a hostile military bloc eastwards in violation of the relevant agreement with Russia on that, just like another hostile military bloc's eastwards expansion in WWII. That's the issue with inventing Nazi analogies in wikipedia articles, all you do is open a can of worms.B01010100 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not (and in fact never, you can see this from my post before!) objected to carefully attributed parallels (look at 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary for examples). About NATO: I've meant expansion since fall of USSR, which Russia - country, that dissolved its own NATO - views as a hostile encirclement (see also Cordon sanitaire). Either way, parallels can be found for anything. Seryo93 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Upd: 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the contents of a comment after it's been responded to. IN this case it makes my response look provocative, instead of responsive to yours. BMK (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Seryo93 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Warsaw Pact dissolved itself, and the Soviet Union really didn't have any choice in the matter, so there's no reason to give them props for that And what of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation that succeeded it? That Russia is now less powerful than the old Soviet Union was is a fact of life, and certainly fuels the Russian paranoia and loss of self-respect that appear to be part of Putin's motivations - but, here again, the rebuilding of Germany's self-regard was one of the factors that entered into the provocation of WWII, and, again, the Santayana quote is pertinent. No one is saying, I don't think, that the situations are exactly the same, but one rarely comes across two world-historical circumstances that are so closely paralleled as these two are. BMK (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See here (remark about Gorby claims - but this is logical consequence of "unwritten promise"). Anyway, I'm not opposed to statement that "Many compared X to Y...[refs]", as in 2014 Crisis commentary section. Seryo93 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sharing a POV is not an excuse to have it included where it obviously doesn't belong.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

B01010100, Seryo93, Petr Matas: I suggest you look into this: [46].
(I'm not sure, but it looks like the person (under a different account name) has already been banned from the Eastern European topics for participation in a coordinated anti-Russian campain on Wikipedia. As I understand, the edit I linked suggests going to WP:AE to enforce the decision. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The original case can be found here [47] (the old user name is Radeksz). The topic ban was for a year [48] but has been rescinded by motion [49], and even if it wasn't rescinded it would've passed now anyway. So there isn't anything to enforce at this time, however point 4 of the motion should be relevant.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@B01010100: Where is this point 4? Could you provide a link? (By the way, I probably won't be able to do anything myself, but I want to help other editors who might want to do something about the problem.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscow Connection (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that he meant the 4th supporting vote of this motion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very easy to get caught in edit warring with VM, it happened to me as well. You have to be very careful. It is also useful to focus on one thing at a time in the discussion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's hardly suprising, edit warring is after all one of his proclaimed methods to keep the content the way he likes it.[50].B01010100 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This still going on? Guys, as flattered as I am to be the subject of your discussion, you do realize that you are basically talking to yourselves? The uninvolved editors, Ktr101 , Ncmvocalist, BMK and a few others, commented above and I think that's pretty much all there is to say. So how about closing this and the few of you that have axes to grind behave yourself in the future? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for both of you. Are you overlapping in the areas that you edit or does it look like one is following the other? I suggest that one or the other has a go at editing a topic that the other would seemingly never touch, if the other party starts editing the same area then a problem is clear cut there. If I had a dispute problem that's what i'd take a look at doing. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 21:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek works hard to fix NPOV problems on topics which are besieged by pov-pushers and single-purpose accounts. AN/I threads like this aren't a sign of actual misdeeds, they're a sign that VM's work is effective. bobrayner (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have edited with Volunteer Marek on quite a few articles and their edits have been exclusively from a WP:NPOV standpoint. Furthermore, I have seen them frequently confront editors who are trying to push their POV into articles. I highly doubt they are inserting "POV-slanted original research" to the article, at least, looking at the evidence provided, I don't see any question of it happening here, and I suggest that this ANI is closed --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So, for instance, inventing "Ukrainian officials said..." even when the source doesn't mention anything of the sort isn't original research? Would it then be OK for me to add, for instance, "UN and EU officials said..."?B01010100 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Just doing a search on his most recent 50 contributions, we find: removing from an article's talk page a complaint by another editor that the article lacks neutrality[51], two personal attacks against other editors in edit summaries (even after having been warned about that behaviour on his talk page, not that this makes any difference) accusing them of sock-puppetry[52] and being a "newly created SPA"[53] (interesting how he can know that an editor who has only had a single edit will turn out to be a SPA, but then why refrain from biting the newcomers when you can), removing the Donetsk and Luhansk referenda from the article listing independence referenda[54] claiming WP:UNDUE contrary to general consensus (the article even includes internet polls), removing a statement showing the disputed status of the Crimean peninsula between Ukraine and Russia to show only Ukraine[55] contrary to general consensus (the article on the Crimean peninsula shows it as claimed by both Russia and Ukraine favouring neither). But since this AN/I is about POV-pushing, let's see how many POV violations that subsequently had to be reverted by other editors there are in those latest 50 edits. We have removing the infobox on the Donetsk referendum[56] because he doesn't like how having an infobox makes it look legitimate(??) even though adding an infobox is standard (there even is one for that internet poll referendum in Venetia), putting scare quotes around "referendum" and adding some slanted phrasing[57], removing a paragraph of well-sourced information on Blackwater mercenaries operating in Ukraine[58] because of a single word (it said "regime" rather than "government", what happened to rewording something rather than deleting entire sections for having one wrong word?). Perhaps not the strongest evidence, but then it's just from taking a quick look at the latest edits, but good enough to show that "editing from an exclusively NPOV standpoint" is hardly accurate.B01010100 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should switch to the RfC/U process. Please help me compose an RfC/U at User:Petr Matas/Volunteer Marek. Petr Matas 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... you just spammed the fact that you're composing this RfC/U, and "asked for help" to like every contentious talk page [59], [60], [61], [62] [63] related to the topic. And this after your repeated WP:FORUMSHOPPING attempts to somehow get me into trouble, here, as well as at Help desk and on the talk page of Crimean status referendum [64] where you insist on discussing "my conduct" (i.e. the fact that I reverted some of your POV edits) rather than the subject matter (which is what the talk page of an article is for).

Look. Your spamming of these "notices", and your forum shopping across several pages, is just a pretty transparent attempt to alert anyone that I have disagreed with to come and join your little witch hunt. It's sort of starting to piss me off, as it's becoming a bit of an obsession on your part and is crossing... jumping ... over the line between "dispute resolution" and "stalking and harassment". I'm sure there'll be some tendentious editors who come to help you out, and I'm certain that there'll be quite a number of newly created, single purpose accounts who'll pile on. But you see, while we edit articles collaboratively, we don't harass editors collaboratively on Wikipedia.

I'd appreciate it if you undid your spamming of those notices from the relevant talk pages. I'd also like it if you just gave up your crusade and junked the RfC but that part, hey, that's your prerogative. The spam notices though - if you don't remove them, and soon - I will.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that you should understand, that I am not trying to get you into trouble anymore. Now I am trying to find out objectively, whether your behavior is harmful and let all of us understand, what needs to be changed to move forward. Yes, I linked the RfC/U from 6 talk pages referenced from this ANI to draw attention of other involved editors, both agreeing and disagreeing with you. There is nothing to loose except some time, but someone is surely going to understand that he is wrong, maybe even all of us. Petr Matas 01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You really have some chutzpah putting the phrase "I am not trying to get you into trouble anymore" right next to the phrase "I am trying to find out objectively, whether your behavior is harmful". My behavior is fine. Don't try to get sneaky and insinuate otherwise. Cuz that's your behavior being harmful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Have Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions warnings been issued? Through I agree that at least one related account look like a SPA returnee who probably knows them well already... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Petr Matas: While i understand the frustration, i have to agree that asking people at several different locations to compose an RfC/U can seem a bit off, even though i realize that it's with good intentions. But if you want my input, it seems that now, with more editors collaborating on those pages, that the most egregious of his edits get quickly reverted and the main problem is slowly solving itself. That it's still far from an ideal collaborative environment is true, and getting him to engage in any sort of good faith consensus-seeking process will be a long uphill battle, so i can see where you're coming from - and that's why, frankly, this constant [insert expletive] isn't worth my time anymore. However, what does bug me is his incessant personal attacks against new editors, even after having been warned about it as well as multiple people complaining about it on his talk page. That sort of stuff is highly damaging to the wikipedia project as a whole, not just something temporarily annoying about a couple of articles. Just think for a minute about how many new editors have been put off from further contributing to wikipedia because the response to their very first edits was being accused of all sorts of stuff by Volunteer Marek, usually sock-puppetry but now he seems to prefer "newly created SPA" (while apparently not even realizing how ridiculous such a statement is, given that being a SPA is a function of a certain editing pattern, something a new editor with maybe 1 or 2 edits obviously doesn't have yet). So it seems, to me, that if you're going to apply a RfC/U and you want it to help remove harmful behaviour from wikipedia that you're better to include that stuff rather than (or in addition to) the refusal to follow BRD and general consensus-seeking, as the latter will slowly solve itself as the contentious nature of the articles tones down and more editors start collaborating on it while the former is simply unacceptable under any circumstances.B01010100 (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if it is you, who says that I am not going the right way, I will have to accept it – I have removed the last remaining notice myself. But I don't think that I will be able to formulate the complaints on incivility; somebody else will have to do it. Petr Matas 04:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Adam Farley

Silvershamrock123 has removed content from Adam Farley with the comment "Farley was later found to be not guilty of this offence and does not want it on his page! He will take this to court if the-edited! Thanks"[65] on the second occasion. The editor's account was AFarley12 before requesting a name change[66] and the editor has claimed to be the article's subject.[67] I'll notify them of this post now. NebY (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that the source cited (via a non-working URL - it can be seen here [68]) doesn't state that Farley was 'charged' with anything ('charged' implying a legal process, rather than FA disciplinary action), the removal looks legitimate to me, regardless of any COI. I would suggest that rather than citing WP:NLT, it might be better to look into this further, per WP:DOLT. If the disciplinary action was indeed later revoked, the article should certainly say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Charged" is a common term in disciplinary procedures in general and the Football Association's procedures in particular. UK editors may well be familiar with press reports of this manager or that being "charged with bringing the game into disrepute" and the FA's disciplinary procedures, listed here use it repeatedly. In their Disciplinary Regulations Section 3 is titled The Charge and uses the term often.

I completely agree with WP:DOLT, but the instructions at WP:NLT are clear and explicit: Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator. After doing that, I have spent some time searching for further events in the case or any mention of an appeal, but have failed. NebY (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well we should keep in mind that, along similar lines as WP:MTAU, we should be careful about using a jargon meaning of terms where the same term is commonly understood to mean or imply other things. So even if "charged" is used in the literature of football, we may wish to use different language to keep from imparting a misunderstanding to our readers who are not familiar with such usage.

At any rate, I don't think a NLT block is needed here, though a stern warning that legal threats are inappropriate on Wikipedia, and perhaps an instruction to publicly disavow any intent of pursuing legal action in connection with this incident on this article. If Shamrock responds in a manner that indicates legal action is still being actively contemplated, a block should be put in place. We've done our due diligence re WP:DOLT at this point, so it lies to Shamrock to retract his general legal threat. I would also suggest that removing the edit summary would be appropriate (once Shamrock retracts his legal threat), though I'm not sure doing so falls within the current revdel/oversight policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for input

The user in question has been adding articles on players who do not meet the American football notability standards (See: Zach Thompson, Anthony Grady, Patrick Scales and a host of others). This user has been warned multiple times in the past by others such as Mr. Stradivarius and Yankees10.

At one point Mr. Stadivarius and myself had several conversations (Can be view here, here, and here) to try and peacefully resolve the matter and, at the time, it seemed to be effective however, recent articles such as the aforementioned Thompson and Grady articles as well as others seem to suggest otherwise. The frustrating part is that this user has proven they are capable of creating well-written and notable articles such as Jeff Heath but follow-up with these articles for players that might not even make it out of a team's training camp never mind play in a game.

As an aside, I've included a link to PrivateMasterHD. Both users have displayed similar editing habits with the former being banned indefinitely after making legal threats. Whether or not these two are related remains to be seen but given the similar user names, it warrants some attention.

To the point, I'd like the community's input as to how to go about addressing the issue since this is now the second time we are having a problem with the user. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 00:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a reason to not just send these to AfD? Hobit (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• From what I read above at the links you provided, it seems as if this editor is working in good faith and is not incompetent, but doesn't quite understand the importance our community places on notability policies and guidelines, especially for living persons. He also doesn't seem to have fully considered the repercussions of the mere existence of an article about a private individual on Wikipedia. I don't think any admin help is needed: he just needs some advice. --NellieBly (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  I think that depends on whether Pmaster12 is willing to listen to the advice or not. Creating a few non-notable articles is not such a big deal, as they can just be taken to AfD. Creating many non-notable articles is more problematic, but doesn't require any administrative action if the user in question recognises that this isn't how Wikipedia works, and is willing to change their ways. That's quite a common learning experience for newer editors. However, if a user creates many non-notable articles and continues to do so despite being aware of our notability guidelines, that becomes disruptive. It creates cleanup work for other editors, clogs up AfD, and wastes time for everyone involved. In such situations, a topic ban or a block is appropriate, in my opinion. So, there are two main questions to be asked here. First, are a significant number of the articles that Pmaster12 is creating non-notable? And second, does Pmaster12 properly understand the notability guidelines? I would be interested to hear from Pmaster12 for their opinion on all of this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of people arguing deletions remain willfully unaware that all the guidelines like "WP:ATHLETE" allow for basic notability criteria, i.e. WP:GNG. A person cannot "violate" WP:ATHLETE without also violating WP:GNG -- that's how the policy is written. Moreover, "violating" WP:GNG depends on a person knowing in advance that multiple secondary sources about the person could never be found, which would be a very hard thing to prove. Even the best Wikipedia authors ought to be able to start an article now and then that craps out when it turns out there's less to be found by research than you'd think. So yeah, leave this to AfD -- getting articles deleted is frustrating enough. (N.B. I'd support in any case simply moving them to Draft: namespace at worst, since they are sourced and they are valid attempts to write encyclopedia articles, and new references to make them notable could come out at any time) Wnt (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Going through the history of the articles The Writer 2.0 linked to, I noticed an error. Pmaster12 created Zach Thompson and Anthony Grady, but he has not actually edited Patrick Scales (American football). There are a couple of other articles he has written in the last few days, though: Eric Pinkins and Brandon Dixon. All these articles are of players that have been selected by teams in the NFL, but (seemingly) haven't yet played in a game for them, and therefore fail point 1 of WP:NGRIDIRON. Some of these may pass the general notability guideline, but at the moment the sourcing in the articles is too thin to prove this conclusively. The best-sourced article is Anthony Grady's, which contains a reference with some background about his career. My verdict: none of these pages are obvious candidates for deletion, but some of them would probably be deleted at AfD, and none of them conclusively demonstrate notability. Whether this amounts to a problem needing administrative action depends (in my opinion) on whether this is a long-term pattern of behaviour, and how responsive Pmaster12 is to advice he receives in this thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by anonymous user.

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

---

This ought to be a quick one. See this diff, posted by User:2601:7:5380:724:5538:4f9a:ba07:ed9e. WP:NLT violation, anyone? I have since removed the edit from the page. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least it looks far more like a tantrum from a child than an actual legal threat... Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but if we pretend it's serious then we won't have to waste our time dealing with tantrums in article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

At most, an educational warning is deserved. Use {{uw-nlt}} if you wish. I don't think a block is necessary, considering it is an anonymous user who has made one edit. Frankly, I personally don't think any action is necessary. WP:DENY the trolls recognition and move on. We can discuss actions if the user continues to be disruptive. Mz7 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that this isn't a credible legal threat, a temporary block per WP:NOTHERE may be merited. One certainly should be issued if further disruption occurs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 02:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Deaths in 2013

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

---

• Special:Contributions/Deaths in 2013

This account is going over 500 times a posting continuous, Unintelligible edit. and Ignoring warning for long time. Please block of a short period of time.--Disputed (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I poked around a little bit, and they surely like to do a lot of small edits, but I didn't see any unintelligible edits in my sampling. Lots of tinkering around with formatting and such, but that isn't really against policy. Can you provide diffs of problematic edits? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

His editing is, Playful editing[69], wrong edit, incorrect information[70], and Unintelligible edit[71][72][73] too many. his posting continuous and Ignoring warning deserves block.--Disputed (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, Disputed, I think you may need to reconsider this post. First diff is him adding a column (but not populating it), second is fixing a ref (supports the text), third, fourth, and fifth are constructive edits changing the date into the article subjects native format, changing the column title to reflect the living status of the person, and them blanking their talk page. None of these are invalid edits. Calling for someones block for valid constructive edits is a bit quick on the trigger, don't you think? 96.35.92.18 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm with 96.35.92.18 on this. Sometimes editing at the same time as someone who does quick fire edits like this can be inconvenient, but from what I'm seeing, every edit he does, he is doing something that is arguably constructive, even if you disagree with the content. His editing style is a little unusual, but there is no policy violation that I can see. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

However, he is not to stop the abnormal posting continuous and continue to Ignore Warnings in the talk page. his editing has not been improved yet. I think Requires warning or block.--Disputed (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't get the hint, I'll be more blunt: Warning for what? Block for what? What policy has he violated? What is "abnormal posting"? Posting that YOU don't like? What policy prohibits this? None. What is problematic is you giving him warnings when he hasn't violated policy. It is a policy violation for you to warn him for vandalising when he clearly hasn't vandalised. The only person I see violating policy is you. You need to read WP:VANDAL. Anything that doesn't fit that narrow definition shouldn't be called vandalism, and is actionable if it is. I recommend you stop templating him improperly, or it will be you that gets blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't stopped with the inappropriate warnings ("if reject dialogue, you blocked from editing" and such) and has now started leaving hidden messages to User:Deaths in 2013 in List of Japanese supercentenarians.--Atlan (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a language barrier issue here? Deaths' editing is fine, Disputed's questioning and warning has been, well, disputed, but they still don't seem to understand what everyone is trying to say. 206.117.89.5 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I removed the warnings at Deaths in 2013's talk page as they were completely over the top as well as against policy. I also linked them here as I could not see any previous link. AIRcorn (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• The boomerang comes around. I've issued a final warning on Disputed's talk page. If they continue to issue unwarranted warnings, either myself or another admin will block them for disruptive editing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Ron Howard editing his own article, or a friend of his, or someone impersonating

At Special:Contributions/64.60.14.2, he claims to know Ron Howard or his interests. Since we don't know if he is or not, he should be blocked immediately and told to contact OTRS for assistance. KonveyorBelt 17:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• LOUISAVELIS is probably a sockpuppet of 64.60.14.2, based on this edit summary, which matches this summary. They don't need to be blocked immediately, anyway, as it looks like these two edits were the user's only edits for today (their last edits were on May 1). I suggest recommending that they use the article talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a simple conflict of interest situation—and in these cases, the best approach is for the involved editor to discuss requested edits on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Louisa Velis is a producer who worked on a lot of Ron Howard's film projects. So yes, a COI situation for sure. -- Atama頭 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Appears to be both a sock and a COI (a problem as to which he was already "spoken to" two weeks ago, with the COI template), and we should handle it as we handle both those problems. A block, for a short period, seems appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Since the username matches the name of a publically-known figure (the producer), uw-ublock-famous seems to be the way to go here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not socking whether or not LOUISAVELIS previously edited as the IP. I welcomed her and dropped her a note informing her she had been mentioned here, there has been discussion at Talk:Ron Howard about how to accommodate the concern, and I've now edited the article myself - however she continues to edit war and discuss only in edit summaries. Perhaps one of our more silver-tongued people like Dennis Brown can save the situation. Or perhaps she'll read what I had just left on her talk page as a follow-up and start to get it. Otherwise it doesn't look good, I agree. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but you give me too much credit. The problem here is that she isn't going to the talk page and seeing the notices, neither the IP or the account. All the sweet words in the world are worthless if they don't see them. It may take a block to get her attention and force her to the talk page. There are already a lot of words on that page as it is, however. I'm also short on time :/ Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

From the edit summaries & page history, it seems as though LOUISAVELIS is WIkipedia:edit warring, and if she makes another edit to that article without discussion (she's already at 3 reverts), she can definitely be blocked for a short time edit warring. Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon

Mallexikon was blocked on the 29th for edit warring at Traditional Chinese medicine. He had repeatedly tried to insert the claim that Traditional Chinese medicine was a protoscience into the article. Since returning he has found a new source and has resumed trying to incert the claim that Traditional Chinese medicine is a protoscience into the article by writing that Traditional Chinese medicine is a “pre-science” and piping it to protoscience. The source that he has used to do this does not support the claim that Traditional Chinese medicine is a protoscience and Mallexikon was informed of this, but apparently doesn’t care. He has also tried to insert the “protoscience” claim into the Acupuncture article.

However, the larger problem is Mallexikon’s decision to engage in race baiting on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. [[74]] And his subsequent decision to engage in taunting when Dominus Vobisdu objected to his remarks about race. [[75]] Mallexikon has apparently decided that “white males” or those he suspects of being white males are not allowed to call Traditional Chinese medicine a pseudoscience.

Editors with racial agendas are notoriously difficult to deal with and Mallexikon’s refusal to get a consensus before reinserting disputed material makes him even more disruptive. I ask that a topic ban be considered. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to call Mallexikon's comments "race-baiting". For example, his first comment on this included this remark:

• "Why use a source for this at all, since we have so many smart people on WP agreeing on it? And within no time, WP will look exactly like all of us white male tech/science-friendly geeks like it."

So, he is characterizing the majority of Wikipedia editors (including himself) as white, male, tech/science-friendly geeks. And then he says his "Wow, the white/male/tech-friendly assumption really hit a nerve in you, did it?" And he said this on April 29th, the day he was blocked. Nothing since.

First, I'm not sure that this is a mischaracterization of the demographics of Wikipedia editors. And second, he was including himself in his observation. I'm not sure who he is "baiting". Third, aside from these two remarks, I don't see any further comments about whiteness on this talk page (but I haven't looked at his edits to other pages). I think if more incidents of this occur, it is might be worth looking into. But I'm not sure if observing that most editors of Wikipedia are white males really qualifies as having a "racial agenda". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, Mallexikon was blocked for edit warring. His inappropriate comments to Dominus Vobisdu have not yet been addressed. Also, he has continued to edit problematically after returning from his block.

Mallexikon’s comment to Dominus Vobisdu was an attempt to control another editor through appeal to racial sentiment. Such tactics have no place on Wikipedia as they are an attempt to shut down civil discussion.

I also cannot understand how any reasonable person could deny that “Wow, the white/male/tech-friendly assumption really hit a nerve in you, did it?” is obvious taunting. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand how any reasonable person could deny that this is a pathetic attempt at censorship.Herbxue (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon’s previous comment in December last year was Everybody's complaining about WP being too white / male / tech-friendly influenced, and everybody's always talking about how incivility should not be tolerated - but obviously that's just talk. Thanks a lot, guys. The edit summary was white / male / tech-friendly WP raising its ugly head. He seems to have a battleground mentality at the Acupuncture related articles when you look at the contributions. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

After being blocked, Mallexikon is continuing to edit war. After the source was deleted by User:JzG and there was no consensus Mallexikon ignored there was no consensus to restore the source. He repeatably restored the source against CON.[76][77][78][79][80] According to this comment any editor can issue an alert to Mallexikon, with {{Ds/alert}}. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Consensus had never been achieved.Herbxue (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon is one of the few reasonable editors at acupuncture, and by reasonable I mean respectful of sources as well as mindful of NPOV. In my opinion Quack Guru is the most guilty of edit warring at TCM and acupuncture. While Mallexikon has proposed seeking compromise wording, QG and Dominus have refused to take that offer in good faith and instead have focused on him. Its ridiculous. If anyone considers banning Mallexikon I recommend reading a larger sample of talk page discussions.Herbxue (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You also tried to delete the text against CON.[81][82]

Sorry, but consensus had not been achieved, and my attempts at compromise wording were reverted by you without discussion. Mallexikon also attempted compromise wording, but you refused to AGF and only pushed your version of the edit with NO attempt at achieving a consensus. Herbxue (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to delete well sourced text from the lede at TCM did not work for Mallexikon. So what is the next step. Rewriting the text at the various articles to bring doubt to the term pseudoscience. When the idea is to undermine what the reliable source says by whitewashing the term pseudoscience when you or another editor can't delete it from the lede, that is not a content dispute. That is a battle ground mentality. There is no point to having quotes in the lede or adding "has been described as". The text largely pseudoscience was correct before. The same kind of thing happened to the lede at TCM. He is moving text around that does not follow the same order as the body. QuackGuru (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

76.107.171.90, QuackGuru and Dominus Vobisdu are some of a group of hawkish editors desperate to include the assertion "TCM is pseudoscience" to the lede of the Chinese medicine article, trying to use an inadequate source, and rigidly resisting any compromise (the current compromise is "TCM has been described as largely pseudoscience", which I happily supported). Please find my more detailed view on this dispute here at the DR/N. The DR/N thread was started by me.

Yes, I have been blocked 24 hrs for edit warring over this (first time ever for me), and I'm sorry - I got caught up in the heat. I'd like to point out though, that the admin who blocked me simultaneously warned QuackGuru for edit warring as well [83]. The race baiting charge, however, is so ridiculous I'm not even going to comment on this.

Parallely to the DR/N thread, tentative consensus regarding this dispute has been found at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience, please take a look. This AN/I here is a pretty obvious attempt eliminate a perceived opponent (and/or to sabotage the consensus found at the talk page and/or the DR process) in a content dispute. I think that WP:BOOMERANG should apply, and would ask for a topic ban of 76.107.171.90. It also like to ask whether it is possible to check whether 76.107.171.90 is a sock puppet of any of the editors involved in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon, saying “The race baiting charge, however, is so ridiculous I'm not even going to comment on this” is a classic Argumentum ad lapidem. You know that your racial comments are totally indefensible, so you are trying to shift the focus away from your obvious misbehavior and onto content issues. Let me be clear; if you had not taunted Dominus Vobisdu then we would not be here right now. Your decision to taunt Dominus Vobisdu after he took offense at your racial comments is obvious bullying.

If any administrator is tempted to think that this is a content issue then they can consider whether Mallexikon’s racial comments alone are sufficiently inappropriate to warrant sanction. The primary reason that I brought up Mallexikon’s problematic editing of Traditional Chinese Medicine is to show that Mallexikon’s racial bias affects his editing of articles and not just his talk page behavior.

Mallexikon, abusively and falsely accusing another editor of being a sock in an attempt to discredit them is a personal attack. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The only personal attack I see is this weak attempt to discredit Mallexikon while diverting attention from the important content issue which Mallexikon is seeking compromise wording for. The racial accusation is disingenuous bullshit and you know it. Stick to the content. Herbxue (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Herbxue, simply shouting “This is about content!”, “This is about content!” over and over again is not going to convince anyone. We are talking about the way that Mallexikon evoked race to try to get his way on Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the way that he taunted Dominus Vobisdu when Dominus Vobisdu objected to his comments. And we are also discussing whether Mallexikon’s bias prevents him from editing constructively within Traditional Chinese Medicine. Increasingly desperate attempts to divert attention away from a serious behavioral issue are not appropriate. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You know what's not appropriate? You are doing this because you disagree with his edits, not because you are actually offended by him making an off-hand comment about white nerds. I'm a white nerd and I am not offended. I highly doubt DV actually felt threatened or insulted. This IS about content (you even referenced his "bias" above, which as far as I can tell he is skeptical of the value of TCM but is unwilling to violate WP policy and common sense to prove it, unlike the other editors here).Herbxue (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon is continuing to violate WP:ASSERT by adding weasel words not found in the source. QuackGuru (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For what its worth, 76.107.171.90 has been blocked for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment of a different editor he has had conflict with in the pseudoscience area. It involved a talk page discussion where he was brainstorming about ways to get this user blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with Mallexicon on TCM, but more generally, we do have a problem with systemic bias; our content follows the interests of anglophone white male technophiles. I am uncomfortable with the idea that editors could be sanctioned for highlighting one of en.wikipedia's most widespread problems. bobrayner (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If that was the problem, I'd agree. Actually the problem is tendentious and disruptive editing. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this a problem or is it okay to delete the text that is part of a summary of the body? If the he thinks the text is unsourced he could of reworded it. He previously claimed the text was also unsourced at the TCM article. QuackGuru (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No it is not OK, it is tendentious and moreover it is edit warring as numerous editors have restored that well sourced text. That is exactly what I mean. Mallexikon appears to be a True Believer; the input of believers helps us to clarify content and keep it honest but they cannot be allowed to wave away the fact that most alternatives-to-medicine are based on refuted notions and sustained by pseudoscience, used to give the impression of legitimacy. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with you about refuted notions and sustained pseudoscience, and I'm not trying to wave away anything here. But QG's edits are not correct, and do not live up to WP standards.

You calling me a "True Believer" constitutes a personal attack. Obviously you don't believe that the motive for my edits is to create a good article, and doubt my integrity as an editor. In spite of a lot of evidence to the contrary (check my edits), insults like this have been hurled at me a lot lately. Interestingly, mainly since QG started editing on the TCM, GERAC and acupuncture pages. And to tell you the truth, yes, being called "True Believer" or "acu-proponent" or being accused of making my money with TCM does hurt. Congratulations. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree it was a mistake to add vague in-text attribution to the lede of the acupuncture article? Do you think it would be better to avoid WP:WEASEL words, which is a vague attribution of a claim to unknown voices ("has been described as"), especially since the source is straight-out assertive. The point the source is making is that it is only within the context of "a disciplined scientific approach" that pseudoscience has come to be.

Do you agree rather than deleting the text you could of reworded it with the c/e at the acupuncture article?

You have a history of deleting text from the TCM article.[84][85] You can't explain it all away as just a content dispute.

Do you agree you made a mistake to delete the text when it is sourced using an independent source?

Do you agree you made a mistake when you added an ASSERT violation when there is no serious disagreement among reliable sources? QuackGuru (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

1.) No, I certainly don't agree. The text I added was consensus at the Traditional Chinese medicine article, originally proposed and then edited by Richard Keatinge [86]. You had the nerve to copy and include your disputed edit into the acupuncture article, even though consensus building about this edit was still ongoing at the TCM article. All I did was to adopt the same consensus at the acupuncture article.

2.) This edit of mine was justified. The source talks about Chinese herbology, not acupuncture. I had tried to implement the consensus reached at the TCM article, but you reverted this [87].

3.) These 2 edits from 2013 you mentioned were justified as well; I wrote a lengthy edit summary for both of them.

4.) Definitely not. That edit of yours was controversial since it violated WP:ASSERT: the source's statement is ambiguous. We have a WP:DRN thread about it and consensus at the TCM talk page changed your sentence in the end. I already explained this under 1.)

5.) Definitely not. If only one of these two sources would state a clear assertion, I'd be happy to include it. But one is speculating, and one is so nebulous it's not even quite clear what it means. We've discussed this at length at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#break. --Mallexikon (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."[88]

Anyone reading the source knows the text is supported by the source and you continue to claim you are justified for deleting the text when you could of rewrote it. You violated ASSERT when there is no serious dispute. You don't have any legitimate explanation for your edit. Is this about the source or is it you who think TCM is not pseudoscience because there is ongoing research? Ongoing research is not relevant to this situation. It seems you personally think the source is speculating when it is you who is disagreeing with reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. 76.107.171.90 brought a complaint against Mallexikon for "race-baiting". There was no support for this charge and 76.107.171.90 was blocked for two weeks for similar efforts of using whatever tools might be on hand to get a different editor blocked. So, now, the OP is blocked, the original complaint is dropped and this has turned into a dispute over Mallexikon's edits to Traditional Chinese medicine which is currently the subject of a dispute resolution. Let's let that process run its course before starting to impose restrictions or topic bans on any editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

I think a 1RR restriction is in order for Mallexikon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and if not already alerted, a {{ds/alert}}. Hipocrite did this on 7 May. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would support some kind of revert restriction. bobrayner (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Additionally there was a fair bit of support for some form of limitations back in Feb [89] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Interesting that there's already some talk on a penalty... But could you maybe tell me for what exactly? I originally was accused of "race baiting" here (which is groundless) and for including the statement that TCM is considered a protoscience (which is not even disputed). Now suddenly Guy is accusing me of edit warring and tendentious and disruptive editing... Without any evidence at all! This edit that QuackGuru just complained about was a revert of his desperate attempt to include the term "pseudoscience" into the acupuncture article without an adequate source. The source he uses [90], is not about acupuncture - it's about TCM herbal treatment. Our own rules as in WP:FRINGE state that "ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." And just because I reverted this attempt to distort a source (BTW, this is not the first time QG's done something like this), I'm a "True Believer"?? Which actually is an insult, and not a small one. It is also a failure to WP:AGF. I think you've been in the trenches too long. If you see a True Believer in me, you're obviously too eager to see this in other editors. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid your inability to understand the problem doesn't bode well. Our job as admins is to try to minimise disruption of the project. I happen to think that restricting your reversion of content will help to remind you to debate rather than edit-war, this is probably a better outcome for you than the alternatives, which are more topic ban shaped. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, obviously you don't understand the problem, since you're biased. Me not agreeing with QG's controversial edits doesn't make a "True Believer". It also doesn't mean that I'm guilty of tendentious editing. I definetely have never engaged in disruptive editing. But every editor with an overzealous skeptic heart happily sees a quack proponent in me, just because I object to QG's disgusting editing style... And concerning edit warring: it was me who started WP:DR for the latest big dispute at Traditional Chinese medicine (a dispute in which you are an involved), and I'm always more than happy to productively engage in any kind of consensus-building. Concerning the latest dispute, just cf. Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience. If you want to minimize disruption of the project, topic-ban QG. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Everybody is biased. Some, like you, perceive their bias ans neutrality. My bias is at least in line with Wikipedia policies: I am very much of the view that where a subject is a matter of legitimate scientific inquiry, the scientific point of view is the neutral point of view. That's nto the issue, the issue is the way you in particular exhibit your bias. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You and me do not disagree regarding the scientific point of view being the neutral point of view. What do you mean with "the way you in particular exhibit your bias"? And would you have any diffs? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You still have not given a justifiable reason to delete well sourced text. You recently added a claim about protoscience using a source written over 30 years ago. QuackGuru (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Herbxue

Recent background information on Herbxue:

• Herbxue deleted TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments. The edit summary was No consensus - disputed statement, not a summary of body, under discussion at TCM talk page.

• Herbxue deleted again TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments. The edit summary was Undid revision 606451839 by Barney the barney barney (talk) Only not disputed if you are too lazy to follow discussion to build consensus.

• Herbxue restored unsourced text that was not found in the citation.

• Herbxue has been notified of the sanctions.

• Herbxue is a WP:SPA editing a very narrow scope of articles related only to acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. Herbxue has a history of reverting experienced good faith editors such a User:Alexbrn, User:Barney the barney barney, User:Roxy the dog, and User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV.

My edits are all reasonable and made in good faith. You're not the first to attack me because we disagree, the others failed because my edits are reasonable and based on sources, with the context of my subject matter expertise. I'm surprised you're not just using the old conflict of interest argument. Anyway, you are edit warring. A LOT. Please cool down. Herbxue (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon added a 30+ years old source about TCM being protoscience written by a teacher on the history of Chinese medicine but we have newer sources on the topic and WP:FRINGE asks us for independent sources on the topic for controversial claims. After the source was deleted it was restored by Herbxue. User:JzG, is this a problem or is it okay for User:Herbxue to reinstate an outdated source written over 3 decades ago? QuackGuru (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That source in question is one of the most respected books in the field of sinology.Herbxue (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Request to effectuate move ban for two editors

Two users Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) and Skookum1 (talk · contribs) have been disrupting articles anout Native American languages and ethnic groups over the past few months movewarring and filing dozens of long move discussions. The issue includes the question of when to prefer native names for languages and ethnic groups and whether the ethnic groups should automatically the primary topic FOo and the language of the groups should be at the disambiguated title at Foo language, or whether both ethnic groups and languages should be disambiguated to Foo language and Foo people. I think the moving around of articles on my watchlist is getting fairly disruptive and I think it would make sense to prohibit both of them from using the move function. There is an ongoing discussion here User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Administrative point We need diffs illustrating the problem. I respect Maunus, but I don't know what I'm supposed to respond to. I've made *one* edit-warring move in the past month, and I don't think I've filed any of the move discussions he's objecting to. — kwami (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Maunus says that I've made one offending edit in the past month, but that he couldn't very well ask for only Skookum to be sanctioned.[91] Doesn't seem reasonable to me. — kwami (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As with the recent ANI filed by Kwami for 3RR when there was no such thing committed, this is a nuisance ANI filed by someone who has very vocally voiced his NPA/AGF about me at Talk:Chaouacha:
  • he accuses me of being a "spiteful jerk" for simply moving something with a "people" dab onto a redlink that had none; impugns my motives for that very simple move
  • says "not going to waste more time on your crap".
  • falsely claims there "a valid norm having articles about ethnic group located at X people" as if it was the norm, which it isn't, nor ever was, though aficionados of NCL have made that claim as if NCL were policy
  • says "there is no requirement for articles to be located at the shortest possible title" which is not what TITLE or PRIMARYTOPIC say at all.
  • Another mis-statement is this " failed to get consensus for your opinion over most articles where you have suggested this" is wildly wrong; 90% of the RMs filed on this were moved and the disambiguation (often added by Kwami) removed;
  • then further distorts reality and impugning my motives by concluding that sentence with "now picking the low han[g]ing fruit by moving the articles for which there are no articles about languages yet". And "you are just choosing to make it look like that out of spite and a weird preference for ambiguous titles". Actually that "weird preference" is in TITLE under CONCISENESS and PRECISION, and can also be found in PRIMARYTOPIC, DAB, and WP:NCET.
  • Accusing me of "spite", "weird preference for ambiguous titles", "spiteful jerk" and such belie the claim that this ANI is only about his irritation about seeing things on his watchlist "moved around". It's not like he's coming at this as someone neutral
  • "The moving around of articles on my watchlist" here is a distortion, as the mass of the articles in question were, as noted above re his rank comments on Talk:Chaouacha, were moved by RM.
  • In the case in question, Halkomelem, the move was in accordance with policy, namely TITLE/CONCISENESS/PRECISION and also with NCDAB and more. The only thing that's made it controversial and a "move war" is Kwami maintaining that a "Halkomelem people" exist and are a competing PRIMARYTOPIC for Halkomelem, the language, which is spoken by a good two dozen separate groups; Kwami in his reversion of the move, which was done by @Anthony Appleyard: after I requested is a technical move, said I had provided no refs; neither had he for his claim that such a people as the Halkomelem people exist (Halkomelem-speaking peoples do);
    • in GoogleBooks there are 63 google refs for "Halkomelem people", mostly older or low-quality and to do with the language, vs 506 for "Halkomelem language".
    • There is no "Halkomelem First Nation", no ethnic group called Halkomelem, the name itself means the language. As for the ongoing discussion at WP:NCL, Maunus's version is a distortion:
      • "the primary topic FOo and the language of the groups should be at the disambiguated title at Foo language, or whether both ethnic groups and languages should be disambiguated to Foo language and Foo people"
    • It is a distortion because the widely-accepted primary topic of FOO in these cases is the peoples, not the language, and the issue of whether or not disambiguation must be added to people titles is is what is being not debated exactly, but filibustered against by Kwami, who wrote the passage of NCL that applied that claimed-to-be-policy across hundreds of titles and who is edit warring over changes to NCL that the emergent consensus in the aforesaid RMs and which is very evident in discussion posts by Cuchullain, JHunterJ, Uyvsdi, CambridgeBayWeather and myself, who wish that NCL be brought into line with TITLE and DAB and PRIMARYTOPIC, which since Kwami's Feb 2011 change to it
    • Kwami has been edit-warring NCL, making reversions of any changes to his preferred/self-authored version which try to bring its flawed text into line with TITLE/DAB etc. He is fighting against and blocking consensus by non sequiturs and mis-stating what other people have said, and fielding POV forks as if others had said them, and also engaged in a heavily editorialized CANVASS entitled "Drastic change in article naming, potentially moving thousands of articles" to try to recruit support for his position at WP:WikiProject Languages, which is out of order according to rules for discussions and still has not been removed and replaced by a neutral announcement of the NCL discussion; that same issue was levelled at me re the Boundary Ranges CfD, as some here may remember, and I complied and changed the announcements.
  • Maunus' paraphrase of the NCL debate is actually is redundant if you read it carefully; both his phrases say that the primarytopic/people should be disambiguated alongside that of the language; that is not the case at all; the issue has to do with the use of a language naming convention to force a "people" disambiguation on ethnic group articles even when it is not needed, or is even inaccurate (many should be plural, for one thing, if that is used at all);
  • Those seeking to bring NCL into line with policy and other guidelines (namely everyone but Kwami, at least insofar as current participants go) also hold that if a language-name needs no disambiguation and is the primarytopic of its name, then it should not have disambiguation, which is the case with "Halkomelem", which is well-known in my part of the world and in use as a standalone term for the name of the language of the Sto:lo peoples, Musqueam, Kwantlen, Cowichan and many others; it needs no disambiguation nor does it occur commonly in English with such disambiguation.
  • As with Kwami's recent ANI filed against me despite his own very questionable and erratic behaviour at NCL and beyond (including the Halkomelem reversions), this ANI is a nuisance and ANI and fielded by someone whose own behaviour and attitude, as detailed above re Talk:Chaouacha, is highly questionable. His "get a life" shot at me from last fall I'm too busy to bother looking it up; his NPAs against me at Talk:Chaouacha are what needed an ANI, I've been too busy working on articles to bother.Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support move ban for Kwamikagami and Skookum1, to be reviewed later when some sanity is restored to the "discussions" (which currently resemble the usual MOS ego wars). Move logs: Kwamikagami and Skookum1. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus:, can you clarify is the move ban for all articles or just for languages and people. I noticed that Skookum1, I didn't look to see if Kwamikagami was moving anything else, has moved some other articles which are not so contentious, Cluculz Lake. Those are inline with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles and similar to the moves I've been making. The link to the discussion you gave, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Drastic change in article naming, potentially moving thousands of articles, (notice how the call to arms is phrased and compare it with the first notice he made Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Changes to naming guideline under discussion) is just part of it. The main discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Twodabs. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 02:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think for Kwami the ban should probably cover all articles since he has a long history of controversial moves without sufficient discussions, for Skookum1 it is probably enough to restrict the ban to articles about North American native peoples and languages.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Maunus hasn't complained to me about anything I've done, yet now he wants to ban me? That's not how it's done. He says I've been "filing dozens of long move discussions". I'd like to see some examples: I've complained about Skookum filing dozens (actually about a hundred) move discussions, but I haven't been doing this. As for move warring, reverting an undiscussed move is perfectly acceptable, per e.g. at BOLD. The last two times were Halkomelem language, which Skookum moved to "Halkomelem" with the edit summary that there is no Halkomelem people, so it's unnecessary to append "language". If that were true, I'd agree with him, but a GBook search returned multiple RS references to the Halkomelem people, so I reverted the move for having an apparently spurious rationale. I could be wrong, but that's what the discussion page is for. The time before that was when someone moved Kaurareg people to "Ngarigo" with Skookum's reason that "This is a unique name and has no need of disambiguation". However, nothing like the name "Ngarigo" appears in the article, so that move would also appear to be unjustified. It's odd to have an article titled "Ngarigo" that only discusses the "Kaurareg", so I reverted that as well. This is all in line with BOLD etc. Most of the entries in my move log aren't page moves, but redirect creation: I move rd's to other alt names as an easy way to create additional rd's. If I've done anything inappropriate, I'd like someone to explain what it was. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I have had many talks with you about your moves, and I have many times asked you to make use of the discussion and consensus generation process for moves instead of unilaterally moving language pages around. You have a lot to contribute to articles about lesser known languages, probably more than any other editor, I really dont know why moving them around to create some sort of system is more important to you than writing the actual content of the articles. I know you have both the sources and the knowledge required for building content instead of moving it around.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Any talks were years ago. Again, what have I done recently that would cause you to propose this ban? Provide some diffs. Name some articles. Something. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support in order to reduce the drama quotient around these two. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, what have I done wrong that warrants a ban? Can you provide diffs? — kwami (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate the link to the WikiProject Languages talk page discussion but it would be even better to present some examples of the conduct being objected to and if Snookum1 and Kwami's actions are similar or not. I realize that Skookum1 has had several appearances on AN/I recently but is this complaint about a continuation of the same behavior or something completely different? It would be nice to see some relationship made between this complaint and earlier ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Get a discussion started to resolve the article naming dispute. Both editors should agree to participate in such discussion and cease engaging in pagemoves in either direction until such discussion is resolved. If they continue pagemoves that the community considers disruptive while such a discussion is underway, then there would be much better grounds to consider imposing editing restrictions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I already linked to the ongoing discussion Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Twodabs about the naming dispute. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Good, now both should agree to a moratorium on pagemoves that would be affected by the outcome of that discussion until, indeed, the discussion has concluded. If they break that moratorium then editing restrictions could be considered. I am reluctant to impose editing restrictions in part because of the stigma (wither real or imagined) that it would have on these two experienced, knowledgeable contributors. Furthermore, even if editing restrictions should be considered necessary, I am opposed to any without a provision for automatic expiration, whether tied to a specific time or the conclusion of a specific discussion. Let's not hamstring prolific contributors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I consider it the exact opposite of hamstringing, a ban would allow them to refocus their energies from a highly energy consuming pattern of interaction and editing to focus on building the encyclopedia by writing articles, instead of moving articles around and writing pages and pages on talkpages about why they move them around.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Kwami can be abrupt but knows his stuff, and is prepared to research when he doesn't. Unless there is a reason that these editors cannot work together - which I am not seeing, there is no reason to block. Per Mendaliv if they need encouraging to talk to each other pro-actively, they may consider themselves so encouraged. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
  

Yes Kwami usually knows his stuff, but he is notoriously poor at filing move requests for possible contentious moves and has a long history of ani threads, gripe and controversies surrounding his moves. I am not requesting a block, just an imposed temporary restriction on moving pages around. They could be allowed to use the move request process as long as an admin carries out the actual moves.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that a block is being asked for just a ban on page moves for languages and people. Take a look at the links I gave above and it's obvious that they are talking to each other but can't get along. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Kwami used to unilaterally move any ethnic group article that didn't fit the "Foo people" format to "Foo people" without any prior discussion (or fixing redirects, or other house cleaning activities) (e.g. [92]), but thankfully he has stopped doing that towards the end of 2013. Skookum1, on the other hand, opposes the use of "Foo people" even when it's helpful (e.g. [93]). Both users are wedded to different one-size-fits-all formulae, and neither seems concerned about what is most efficient for Wikipedia users trying to find articles. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages has been a ongoing repetition of entrenched, unchanging viewpoints. If you think "they need encouraging to talk to each other pro-actively," then you haven't read that lengthy discussion or the many other discussions spanning years now. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yes, I stopped doing that when I got enough complaints, and yes, I don't know if talking with Skookum would help. We actually did used to work together, but it only lasted as long as I agreed with him. This is a pattern others have noted, and tried mentoring him on; if people with much more patience than me have thrown up their hands, I doubt I'll be able to do any better. But regardless, unless I'm doing something wrong here re. moving these pages, I don't get what purpose a ban serves. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point. The purpose of an editing restriction, such as a ban, is to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. If there isn't currently disruption, and the editor against whom the complaint is directed has actual notice that there is a problem with prior behavior, then unless there is further disruption, editing restrictions serve no purpose. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Here are the move logs again (they were linked above by User:Johnuniq): Kwamikagami and Skookum1. There obviously is a real problem going on with move warring and undiscussed moves. EDIT: Kwami has been working redirects and Skookum1 has been moving articles sans discussion/census because apparently disambiguation is a bad thing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Neither kwami nor skookum have done a pagemove within the ambit of the discussion since this ANI thread was started. I think that's fine. I see nothing wrong with following the alphabet and doing WP:DR before WP:EDR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

People do have to sleep some time, but you are correct, there is a whole 12 hour and 6 minute hiatus in moves before this ANI. What happens to all the unilateral, undiscussed moves that took place during Skookum1's ongoing move frenzy? -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Re. me, which moves? Can you give any examples other than the two I mentioned above? — kwami (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Leave 'em stand until the discussion ends, as would happen with any edit war or 3RR violation. In a more confined instance, temporary move protection might have been warranted. There is no deadline, and temporary stability in this case is preferable to getting it correct right now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Prior to this discussion, I already reverted some of Skookum1's undiscussed, unilateral moves of ethnic groups of "Foo people" to "Foo" because those unilateral moves with zero housekeeping *do* create problems and needless ambiguity; however, am happy to let other editors clean up the mess later on, if people here so desire it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Support a temporary abstention of both editors from the language/ethnicity naming guideline debate and any related move proposals, for let's say a month, enforced if necessary. The debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages) shows that the situation has become drowned in the personal disagreement between these two, to the point where it is no longer easily penetrable to outside observers, so it has become a detriment to any prospects of having a sane solution worked out through fresh outside input. Unfortunately, this kind of situation seems only all too common when it comes to style and naming issues. These are the kinds of situations where otherwise reasonable and well-respected editors sometimes have to be told politely that they have become too personally entrenched over an issue and should please step aside to let other people take over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support restriction for a duration not exceeding 1 month on the basis and terms proposed by Fut.Perf. which summarises my position well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a voluntary self "ban" by both editors for 1 month - As Fut.Pef., but with no record of a formal ANI decision since Maunus has presented no diffs. There are some middle voices in the Languages and ethnicity projects, let them rise to the top for a month. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've repeatedly asked for diffs, and he refuses to provide them, referring instead to conversations we had two or three years ago.

What would be covered by the voluntary ban? Are you thinking what we append or don't append to the article title? I have no problem with Skookum fixing punctuation, for example, and it would be a bit silly to file a move request for such trivia. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional input requested

Withdrawing complaint; situation is being handled. I apologize for the slight degree of drama this thread has caused. It was an altogether poor decision on my part. Kurtis (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I dislike bringing anything to this board, but I would like broader input from other members of the community regarding a situation transpired between myself and Fæ over the past couple of days. It pertains to a statement I posted at WP:ARCA; the original revision can be found here. I commented with the intention of distancing myself from a previous stance I had expressed following the conclusion of the ArbCom case currently being appealed. Nevertheless, part of my statement was seen as objectionable and misleading, specifically: "...[I] was upset by his attempt to suborn the committee through his position as chair of the UK Wikimedia chapter." Fæ took issue with two parts in particular: The usage of the term "suborn", defined on Wiktionary as inducing a person or organization "to commit an unlawful or malicious act, or to commit perjury." The insinuation that he did so through his capacity as chair of Wikimedia UK. He also rejected my assertion that the consensus among arbitrators, as demonstrated via individual comments on the proposed decision page, was that an incident transpired where he had requested a WMF official to more or less intervene with the identification of his prior accounts due to privacy concerns. I was simply reiterating what they had said, which I do not think constitutes slander against him on my part. Following a second review of the situation, I retracted the aforementioned two aspects of my previous statement by striking them out and apologized for inadvertantly misrepresenting what had happened. Fæ was not satisfied and requested their removal altogether, saying that keeping them intact is a violation of BLP. I initially refused to do so because I saw nothing wrong with the text as it stood at the time. Fæ responded by bringing the matter to the BLP noticeboard, as you can see here (permanent link to the post as it stands now). He directed me to look over the talk page discussion of the proposed decision page (in particular its revision history, to read through a statement he had posted regarding the debacle), the existence of which I had not been aware of until that time. Despite its convoluted nature and the lack of public information provided by the arbitrators and the WMF official (understandable, as it pertains to privacy issues), there appeared to be numerous discrepancies between Fæ's recounting of events and what actually transpired. The more I read into it, the less I trusted what he had to say. The whole thing came off as evasiveness on his part. I ultimately agreed to remove the sentence altogether, which was apparently defamatory. I was not the first person to implicate Fæ in these acts, and the fact that he went to such great lengths to force their removal leads me to wonder whether he was motivated more by an attempt to stifle any further acknowledgement of his past actions than the issues with semantics. Specifically, I had thought bringing it up at the BLP noticeboard and requesting intervention instead of calmly outlining his wishes on my talk page was an overreaction. I avoided pursuing this matter any further because I didn't see much of a point in doing so, and also because I thought I might wind up making a complete fool of myself. But seeing as how this isn't the first time Fæ has caused such feelings of enmity with his abrasive approach, I figured it would be reasonable to ask for second or third opinions. Kurtis (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC) WP:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space applies to serious claims about anyone's life, including mine. I have a perfectly valid right to expect the Wikipedia policy to be applied as stated. This was resolved at BLP/N where anyone can comment who would be interested, unfortunately this meant that I had to repeat Kurtis' false allegation about me. As Kurtis had refused repeated requests to remove his false allegation, taking the matter to BLP/N for independent review, rather than continuing to take an Arbcom discussion on a tangent seemed sensible. Bringing this to ANI is now forum shopping, and an unnecessary repeated publication of this false allegation. It is not possible to defend from personal character attacks like "The whole thing came off as evasiveness on his part". Kurtis, please stop this, please. You have failed to provide evidence that BLP requires you to provide. After giving an apology for your actions, you now appear to be deliberately working against WP:BLPTALK by finding new ways to publish your allegation on Wikipedia, effectively inviting the community to put me on public trial again for events that have been well documented and were reviewed by Arbcom two years ago. I have included my apology below, which you may have missed. --Fæ (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC) There is no value to prolonging this thread or further discussing these events. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC) It's not the events of the past that I'm attempting to discuss (I support the concept of the double jeopardy clause), it's the needless escalation and mischaracterization of my intentions that I wanted outside input about. Kurtis (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)Indeed - I will be looking into the matter presently. Procedure hasn't been followed (ie if something happens on Arbcom pages, either ask arbcom or clerks to look at it), by either party and I'd recommend this thread closed. WormTT(talk) 08:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC) If anyone else would like to close/hat this discussion early, please do so. Thanks. Kurtis (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Or am I permitted to close this thread myself? Kurtis (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)}}

Ethiopian123 and Gyrofrog123

• Ethiopian123 (talk · contribs) (talk page before blanking)
• Gyrofrog123 (talk · contribs) (talk page before blanking)

I was going through requests for unblock when I came across Ethiopian123, who was autoblocked based on the IP address used by Gembres (talk · contribs). Given the name and Gembres's edits before being blocked (block notice), it seemed like a clear WP:DUCK, and I commented to that effect. I then found Gyrofrog123, who was also autoblocked based on Gembres's IP address, and I think you all can put two and two together. Although these two accounts have not edited since Gembres's block was lifted, I'd advise that these accounts be blocked indefinitely to prevent further sock puppetry. (As I'm writing this now, I discover that Gembres was in a dispute with a certain user named Gyrofrog [ Gembres's talk page at the time of this post ], so Gyrofrog123 should perhaps also be blocked as an WP:IMPERSONATOR.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is now 4 socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gembres. Gembres' sock Seleme123 (talk · contribs) edited before and after Gembres' sock was lifted, AyalnehN (talk · contribs) edited only while Gembres was blocked. This is blatant sock puppetry but SPI is too busy to deal with it and Gembres has so far escaped any penalty for these 4 socks. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The socks have been dealt with. Extended the block on the original account. —Dark 09:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

IP User Vandalizing a Page

There is an IP user by the name of 2602:306:25A5:82A9:64FF:179:13E7:7BF8 (And other IPs such as 2602:306:25A5:82A9:95D2:E1AC:6604:534C, 2602:306:25A5:82A9:4021:2EAC:E8AF:CFD3, 2602:306:25A5:82A9:9020:B8B9:8C1A:2CA0) that has created vandalism at the Vortexx article, deleting current shows and replacing them with other such as Lego City, Batman Beyond, and SpoderMen (which dont even air on the block) I've given him multiple warnings that I would contact an admin about this issue if he doesn't stop, and he still continues to revert the page to his vandalism shows. --GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't easily block someone who's always changing IP addresses. That's why we have semiprotection. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A range block may be possible, it looks like all IP edits from 2602:306:25A5:82A9::/64 are the same disruptive editor, on several articles (some now protected, others not). Other IP addresses used are 98.90.88.42 and formerly 2602:306:25A5:9999::/64. There's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mkrgolf, but the accounts and 2601:7 IP are probably unrelated. Peter James (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Simple East Grinstead addition to Media Section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charlesdrakew#East_Grinstead_entry

Hi,

I simply added a relatively new community news website to the appropriate media section of the entry relating to the West Sussex, UK town, East Grinstead. A simple one - liner in the same format as other entries there, with the relevant hyperlink.

This was removed by editor Charlesdrakew

I explained my reason for adding and included some further details about the organisation (as per the talk entry above)

Editor replied with irrelevant, slightly childish, abusive comment about the local MP, who I had mentioned as a supporter of the website.

I tried again with a longer explanation and so far have received no reasoned response.

Looking at other entries by and about this editor - he seems to adopt a rather offhand and rude approach to fellow contributors to Wikipedia.

Could someone else review my addition to the East Grinstead entry, which I believe is fair, reasonable and in accordance with the existing content listed in the media section as East Grinstead Online is a comparable, if new media, news organisation

Further info is in the talk entry referenced above.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.208.0 (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that his response was not helpful. However, adding links to your own website on Wikipedia is not acceptable either. Please read WP:COI. Number 57 10:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the removal being complained of. No admin action needed. Charles' response might be characterized as BITEy, but honestly, linkspam is linkspam. It shouldn't need a more in-depth explanation than Charles gave at the IP's user talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

False accussations by Lightbreather

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

---

See above for details. Lightbreather has been accussing many here. They are unfounded and in my opinion harrassment of editors to game the system. Lightbreathers contributions show many accussations, tenditious editing, edit warring, and ownership of articles. I never met Lightbreather until I investigated an accussation against an editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks I decided to speak up after much time was devoted to my investigation. She most recently has accussed me of being someone else. Prior she accussed another IP of bein a sock and did not post a notice o their page and played ignorant when asked about it. Prior to that she accussed SCALHOTROD when the evidence was strongly against herself and not SCALhotrod. She also posted another complaint she called Clarification to get another editor out of gun related articles. A check of Lightbreather's contributions will show a definite pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lightbreather I am now here because when I commented on the complaint she brought against SCALHOTROD she then tried shifting blame to me.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Fishy_IP_user

Now she is trying to close the discussion about here above before it boomerangs. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=608697337 Thanks. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I never met Lightbreather until I investigated an accussation against an editor Looks to me like you never edited Wikipedia before you "investigated" Lightbreather. Tell us what accounts/IPs you have edited from before? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I see a new account or anonymous user with no other contributions open a thread on ANI stating "I have nothing to do with this but decided to complain anyway", my BS-o-meter goes off. Even if that wasn't the case, this complaint is meritless and quite ironic, as this post is rife with unsupported accusations.--Atlan (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this post alone [94] is quite sufficient grounds to block the IP (and any new incarnations) as an obvious troll. "investigating" contributors and speculating about their personal interests isn't remotely appropriate behaviour, and nothing the IP has done is remotely of benefit to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course Andy would be quick to block an IP because he has made derogatory statements in the past about IP's. Andy also has been recently involved here under the same subject matter as Lightbreather. Andy has history with Lightbreather may share the same bias. And Andy your attitude hurts wikipedia and how you survive censorship is a miracle. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, quite ironic that you casually fling unsupported accusations around in a thread where you complain about false accusations.--Atlan (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence of trolling. [95][96] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Article creation vandalism by obvious socks

Several new (sockpuppet?) editors (Aikonut61 (talk · contribs), Marilione (talk · contribs), Zakbramah (talk · contribs)) keep re-creating Anlu Rodsou each time as a different subject (singer, company, military base, etc.). Could someone salt the article and perhaps do something about the obvious socks? Thank you. - MrX 16:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, salted by NawlinWiki. That's a start. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• What do we have here--some sort of Brazilian 4chan? Blocks for everyone (I blocked one of them yesterday already.) I don't know if they're socks or meats, and if a CU wants to check they can add appropriate templates, but I'll mark my blocks with a link to the article. Thanks, and thanks NawlinWiki, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: the first series of recreations do appear to be very meaty rather than direct vandalism, so I'll note that and will block the first one, Sladewakenz, not indefinitely, inviting your scrutiny and suggestions. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Drmies. I appreciate your help. - MrX 18:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Harassment

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

---

IP user 208.54.35.173 appears to have targeted me for WP:HARASSMENT.

• Posts here at ANI:[97][98][99][100]
• Posts on my talk page:[101][102][103]
• Posts on other users' talk pages:[104][105][106]

What is the best-practice response to this? My feelings keep tottering between puzzled and anxious. Lightbreather (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Werieth runs unapproved bot

User:Werieth runs an unapproved bot which works 24/7 and inserts invalid links to archives at mass scale. It also secures its commits by removing at least one archive.is link in each transaction thus making undo impossible. See Special:Contributions/Werieth and WP:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archivedotisbot#WeriethBot 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont work 24/7 and I am not a bot. Im sorry if you like archive.is spam but it needs removed per the RfC. Werieth (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You must at least separate removing archive.is links and other actions and not doing it in single commit. Also, inserting links at mass scale requires bot approval and test run. A lot of links that you have inserted are invalid.

I am not talking about the links you remove, I am talking about the thousands of links you inserted in the commits you commented as "remove archive.is". On each archive.is link you removed, you inserted 10 other links. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Im just replacing/adding links to the most current archived copy of a source. archive.org already has over half a million uses I didnt know I needed to get approval for something that is already in the guideline and is suggested practice. No Im not going to make a dozen small edits to an article, to separate every little thing I do. When I edit an article Im going to do as much as I can at the same time to make it easier for me. Werieth (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Inserting archive.org links and its caveats has been discussed many times. It is not so easy and many approved bots had been blocked because they choose wrong snapshots. Peeking "the most current archived copy" is usually a bad choice. There have been bots which parsed article's history and peeked archive.org snapshot most close to the date the link appeared in the article. Even they had many false positives and was finally stopped. That is why you have to apply your bot for approval. The bot approval team mostly consists of the authors of the bots I mentioned, they know a lot about archive.org and about the algorithms which snapshot to peek and how to check for "soft 404" and other invalid snapshots, that you did insert a lot. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not a bot, but given that the AN thread was pretty clear that a new RFC is needed and that multiple users have clearly petitioned mass removal - this is pretty much spitting in the face of the users. If this was done six months ago it would be "following the RFC", but no part of the RFC was actually followed until the opposition mounted. This is action is WP:POINTY in the least - many links CANNOT be replaced by Archive.org or Webcite and time and time again, the removal results in purposely creating more Linkrot. I find it shameful that bad faith and unsupported allegations of blatant fear-mongering were used to condemn an entire website because the actions on a single sockpuppeteer. Even the allegation that Archive.is website is "spam" is gross mis-characterization of the facts. Archive.is has thousands of valid and working links that are irreplaceable at this moment and they have no ads or malware - it does not even begin to meet the definition of "spam". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not a bot. But based on the amount of links she/he inserted, I would say that she/he spent only a small fraction of a second to evaluate the quality of a archived snapshot. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is is/was not spam. Archive.is was spamming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I agree it doesn't look like a bot, but I'd say it's generally a bad idea to do anything on a mass scale that requires human review and judgement. Inserting the current archived copy of a source is, more often than not, going to make verification much more difficult to users following those citations. Care was taken to present the snapshot containing the relevant information from a specific time period, which likely changed since then. @Werieth:, I think removing the archive.is links is supported by the RFC (for now), but I urge you to stop doing archive updating unless you are reviewing each instance. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the latest commit by User:Werieth. You see, archive.org link was added next to the link to alexa.com in the website infobox. What is the purpose to add link to 2009 archive of alexa.org rating of the website? The link to alexa.com is just a reference showing where OKBot takes the rating of the site once in a month. Moreover, the archived snapshot is broken. What was a purpose of this commit? Why it is commented as "replace/remove archive.is"? Could it be done by a (responsible) human? It looks like either a bug in an unsupervised bot or an act of vandalism. I tend to think the former. If she/he is not a bot then she/he is a vandal. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are a harassing troll, and I wont feed you any more so drop it and never post to my talk page again. Werieth (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If the change of 43 Things has been made by a human and you claim that you are that human, you should be able to explain why did you do this change (and many other like this), shouldn't you? So far, the unapproved unsupervised bot is the most realistic explanation. And note that it has nothing to do with the buzz around archive.is RCF. I am talking about other your changes. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. This edit is careless if not script/bot done. Werieth's edit added an invalid archive snapshot to a working page, the second was a current archive to one that is inaccurate and the third change removed the Archive.is one and left a useless link that doesn't even resolve properly which WOULD work if he bothered to correct the link.[107] Sorry, but this is detrimental editing and needs to be stopped now - the changes are actually harming Wikipedia and are being done without care. The method doesn't matter anymore, the entire edit was bad and careless - Werieth is not doing this with a minimal amount of caution and care. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  ChrisGualtieri with the cnet link, I have seen that same format quite a bit where archive.is spam just prefixed archive.is and a date/time to the URL. I thought from the dozen or so I checked, returned the link target back to where it should have been pointing, I guess that schema isnt 100% accurate like I thought. Werieth (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: My apologies, I misunderstood/misread what you are actually doing. I thought you were replacing archive links of a specific time period with the most current archive link, but I see you're just adding archive links. I struck the relevant sections of my comment. 90.163.54.9, I think you should disengage at this point. You can participate in any future RFCs about the topic to get your opinion in. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Spike Wilbury: yeah I was only adding archive urls to citations that lacked them. Any existing url, or archive url wasnt touched (except for archive.is links) Werieth (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• @Spike Wilbury: Automated inserting of archive.org links was discussed too many times in the past, and all such activities has been blocked by community decisions for malfunction or being not accurate enough. No one of those bots is active at the moment. Is there any need to open a "future RFC" and collect the opinions again? There is bot approval procedure and test run to check if User:Werieth can offer a superior technology. But now she/he runs her/his bot under her/his user account and abuses the archive.is filter to make the changes irreversible. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think this qualifies as automated. I meant that there might be another RFC about removing archive.is links. Please cease the accusations that he is running a bot, and that he is abusing his editing privileges. Editors certainly aren't required to separate their edits to make it more convenient for people to revert them. Werieth seems to be responsive to reasonable questions and comments, so I'm not seeing an issue here that requires admin action. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• She/he already asserted that she/he runs an automated tool by saying "the dozen [links] or so I checked", although he inserted more than thousand links. Also, the accuracy of his peeking of archive.org snapshots (even if they were made by a human) is lower that accuracy of H33lBot and other defunct bots. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I cease the accusations but I insist that her/his activity to be approved by the WP:Bot Approval Group as mass inserting of archive.org and webcitation.org links is definitively within their scope. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No I didnt, What I said was that I had checked the schema of archive.is links using the prefixed format (similar to the case with CNET above) using a 10-20 samples and all of them resolved when I converted the archive.is/<date>/http://<real URL> to just http://<real URL>. After checking repeatedly I made an assumption that all links in that format followed the same pattern. Please stop placing words in my mouth and harassing me. Ive gotten 10+ "Thanks" and a barnstar for this work. BAG has zero jurisdiction on human editing, Now shove off. Werieth (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• You made this assumption and... what? and then run the script which used the found pattern as a template, right? BAG has jurisdiction on mass scale actions, and also its member has a lot of experience in working with archive.org. You repeat the mistakes they made years ago. Also there is an option in the bot approval request, a bot can be either Automatic, Supervised, or Manual. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is the last Im going to post here, if anyone else has questions feel free to raise them directly with me, but this troll is getting on my nerves. No Its a matter of when I saw that particular type of archive.is link I just removed the associated archive.is/<date> junk and restored the original url. Now its time to remember WP:DFTT. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thats not quite true. WP:MEATBOT applies I think. Obviously that only matters if the edits you are making are considered disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Spike Wilbury: Bot approval request for remove archive.is links is already filed by User:Kww. What User:Werieth does is something different, albeit he tries to camouflage her/his activity as "following Archive.is RFC" and "removing archive.is links". On each edit, she/he removes 1 archive.is link and insert many unchecked links to archive.org and webcitation.org. Not instead of archive.is links, but in other places of the articles. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe given some of the timestamps on those edits that it isnt a bot. Multiple unrelated articles in the space of two minutes with edits of 600-1500+? Technically its possible if you had the edits prepared in advance and were just cutting and pasting or find/replace. But its unlikely. Could someone with more bot-experience do an analysis of the timeframes & edit counts please? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I pinged some BAG members to join the discussion. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bot or not Werieth's actions are disruptive. I have highlighted the damage he has caused to the articles he has targeted, leaving many references now dead and without archives, he has made changes to user inserted archive.is links, putting articles back several steps in terms of quality and making no effort to rectify them even when I have taken the time to point out each and every reference he has damaged or outright killed. He is content to edit war and call anyone against him a troll and quite frankly he needs either blocking temporarily or to be banned from making these sweeping changes, as he does not have the intention to carry them out properly or deal with the consequences. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Im going to be frank here, you are being a WP:DICK. You came to my talk page, accusing me of vandalism, disruptive editing, and you where using profanity. At that point I decided to ignore your rants and abusive behavior, in a few days after you had a chance to cool down and see that your abusive behavior gets you zero results I was going to go ahead and see what more could be done about the archive.is links that I couldnt previously replace. Had you come to my talk page and behaved appropriately, like Prhartcom (talk · contribs) did, you would have gotten the same outcome, almost 100% replacement. In the case of Batman: Arkham Origins I was able to get all but 1 URL additional archives (27 other links I created archives for). Once you decide to behave like an adult, not make threats, or use profanity we can work collaboratively. Until then good bye. Werieth (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Humor: WP:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you —Prhartcom (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Since the filing IP is probably the same individual who spammed the links in the first place, I have blocked it. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  You will replace the archives, your attitude has earned you nothing and had you done the job properly in the first place I would never needed to ever converse with you. The faster you do it, the faster I can proceed with never talking to you again. But you will do it. And you've still left 23 references without an archive, I do not care that you replaced a small portion of the archives YOU removed, I care that you have not replaced the rest. And when this point was broached about the Joker, you simply continued your unwanted assault on articles by moving on to Batman: Arkham Origins. So do not take the stance that you are a withered and delicate flower hard done by, you deliberately vandalised the articles and they will be repaired. How hard that has to be is only on you, you do not get to demand courtesy from you, you forfeit it the moment you ignored my complaint about the Joker and did another article. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 20:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy, and as an outside observer here, I hope I can suggest that this incident appears ready to be closed. Prhartcom (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hello DWB, now that this incident is probably going to be closed, I'd like to delicately give you some advice: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. There's no point in starting a sentence complaining about someone else's attitude when you have an attitude like yours. You gotta agree you haven't been assuming good faith. It's hard, believe me I know (especially when you know you're right!), but it's a rule around here, and had you followed it, you could have made your point AND had your archives replaced by now. As it stands, you made your choice to use vinegar, so no one is paying any attention to you anymore, and I'm afraid you are doing that work yourself. No hard feelings, I hope. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Werieth is probably the same individual who had been known as User:Betacommand and has been blocked for running buggy bots. 5.29.191.166 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Block evasion.

• Wikipediocracy is a place full of rumors. There's very little evidence that these two are the same person, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, Betacommand's bots are still working (note the Last Modified). It is not some script forgotten 2 years ago. Some folders have only files created in 2014. Betacommand is still among us. 5.29.191.166 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Block evasion

• He is known for still providing assistance, and running reports upon request. see a barnstar for one such report on his talk page. From the looks of it people either email him or he notices a request on a notice board, runs the report and has someone leave a note about it. It also appears that his SPI reports never stopped being generated for SPI cases. It looks like he probably moved on from enwiki, and is probably working in of our sister projects. Given the abuse that is regularly thrown out, personal attacks, and other stuff Im actually surprised that we haven't lost a larger group of our editors. Werieth (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Fishy IP user

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

---

There is an IP user address 172.56.11.104 that is making mostly gun control edits today. This address' first edit (and only edit until today) was 2 March 2014, and that subject is one under which a few (four?) editors were topic banned 30 April 2014 as the result of a looong ArbCom. Something smells fishy to me. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a standardized ArbCom approved Discretionary Sanctions warning? Drmies (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ponder that reply, Drmies. It's been a long day and I'm not firing on all pistons right now. Also, I don't have much experience with analyzing the behaviors of, or how to handle, IP editors. Or post-ArbCom protocol either. Perhaps after a night's rest I'll "get it." Lightbreather (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Citing 3RR, and then making a variety of threats towards other editors, does suggest a longer and more colourful history, but I'm completely lost as to their recent contributions. James^x12345 09:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Very strange behaviour. The IP user claims to have "retired" now and hasn't edited in the last few hours. WaggersTALK 11:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect he/she is now using IP address 208.54.35.173. In Personal attacks discussion higher up on this page, he's asked an admin to look me over. This is a new experience for me. Any suggestions? Is there a Wiki word for this kind of behavior? Lightbreather (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence shows you are likely trying to cover your tracks by shifting blame and pretending to be ignorant. Lightbreather's undetered attempts at Gaming the System have caught up with her. Lightbreather contributions shows tenditious editing and taking many editors to Arb and then pretending to be ignorant about terms and procedures. I am not buying that. I am very determined so be careful about laying wild accussations because of Boomerang. If another admin takes the time to thoroughly investigate Lightbreather's track record a boomerang is very likely in my opinion. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have had enough and have opened a complaint. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Persistent reverting on Mudvayne pages

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. I've never done this before despite using this site for a while. (I've been using this site under another username since 2006, so I'm not new to Wikipedia. I just wanted a change.) I'm not sure if this should have been brought up on the edit war report page, but techically he hasn't broken the 3RR rule. A user with the IP 192.42.92.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps making changes to the Mudvayne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page and all of the related pages (songs, albums and band members; too many to link to). I know that I don't come off looking good in this as well, since I've made a bunch of reverts to his edits, some of which may not have had sufficient explanation or I may have been rude at times. I'll admit it's because I was tired of having to revert his edits (there are a whole bunch of pages to revert after all), and if I end up getting a block because of this then so be it. However I will say that I was trying to go for a compromise. Most editors believe that nu-metal is their primary genre and there are various sources pointing out the fact, and the IP user believes that it should be progressive metal, and only that. I've tried to change it to just metal (leaving both nu-metal and progressive metal in the gene section) until a consensus could be reached on the talk page, but the user is not interested in discussion. He is adamant that his point of view is correct and while he has posted on the talk page it's only to prove that he's right and then he goes and makes his edits again.

Apart from the fact that Mudvayne have sources that claim they play various genres, the three cherry-picked links that he keeps providing to back himself up have problems. First of all, two of them don't even work and the third one just has progressive metal on a throwaway line on an article about their masks. Second, most of the time the articles have nothing to do with the albums or songs that he's linking them to. However despite having the problem with his links pointed out to him, he still continues to use them. Also note that he's the only person that seems to support the clams of Mudvayne only being a progressive metal act. Any other users reverting edits made by me or other people making changes to his edits were done so erroneously, mostly by users using tools that identified our edits as vandalism (I have gone to the talk pages of users that have reverted my edits), since he manages to cheat the system by providing his same 3 flimsy sources. Anyone who disputes his claims is labelled as someone who "hasn't studied music" or done enough research. He then accuses us of being biased or vandals. (I admit I called him a troll, but he's been rude well before that, and him using the same three links over and over again made it seem like he was having a laugh.) He doesn't understand how sources work. He thinks that he can choose the sources the he agrees with and ignore everything else. We are not trying to remove progressive metal from the list of genres, we're trying to include all the genres they've been noted to play. He also deleted everything from his talk page so I don't think he's interested in discussion. It's worth noting that he's tried to do the same thing on TVTropes which led to suspensions, both, to him and another user he was warring with. I don't think he can be reasoned with. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

SonOfPlisskin, can you provide examples (diffs) illustrating specific conduct you believes violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines? You've written a lot but not provided much evidence to back up your accusations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, there are too many edits to give a complete listing (and it can easily be seen from his edit history), but here are a few examples of him using the same links over and over again despite being told that they're not good enough and despite the fact that they're irrelevant to the articles in which he's linking them. 1, 2, 3. Now imagine that 30 times instead of 3. You can also read his discussion here on the Mudvayne page. Instead of trying to find a consensus there and leave the Mudvayne pages either with no genre listed or a more encompassing "metal" tags, he just claims that he's right and goes on an editing spree. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The user has been similarly edit-warring over Mudvayne on TV Tropes and has shown there that they will turn to ban evasion to continue it. 71.170.110.181 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User 71.23.178.214 back to behavior that resulted in block

• 71.23.178.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous ANI discussion on Feb'14 block
• Discussions besides his own talk page UT:Arthur Rubin and UT:Ronz
• Michael Grimm (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He's back to his old behavior and then some. He's edit-warring [108] [109] [110] [111] over additions he wants at Michael Grimm, but is unable to give rationale specific about the value of the material and will not take his case to WP:ELN [112], but instead sticks to a WP:BATTLE mentality on the article talk page by attacking the other editors and completely forgetting the reasons for his previous block.

At United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2014 he's making WP:POINT-violating edits out of frustration.

When this was brought up at Arthur Rubin's talk page, he responded with an borderline WP:OUTING violation [113]. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I will respond later with the five-months worth of diffs from these people (and a few others) showing their pattern of behavior to me and others in pursuit of their personal agenda to subvert Wikipedia articles dealing with US politics. I am not the one who has been edit-warring, quite the reverse. As you are no doubt aware, Arthur Rubin is blocked, for cause, from editing Tea Party Movement articles. He and Binksternet seem to have been set off by this and then moved on to three other political templates. At this point in time I will respond only to the charge of WP:OUT. Arthur Rubin's user page shows he has included himself in the category of Wikipedians who edit DMOZ. His LinkedIn page also includes this information. He is identified as a Moderator in a DMOZ Google+ group. He has made no effort to hide this, uses his real name on all these websites, and uses the same or similar photos on all these websites. He now claims, on my Talk page, that I "outed" him when the truth us he has been "outing" himself for years. It's been broadly disseminated in the public domain, for years, by his own purposeful actions. He is not a naive child, he is an Admin at Wikipedia. Presumably he understands this, yet he plays the victim card. He also makes some rather garbled (at least to me) references to spamming, canvassing and "multiple forums". When I present my collection of diffs, you will see this sort of thing fits into their pattern of ongoing behavior. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an OUT vio, his own user page stated he was a member of that organization. KonveyorBelt 01:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

---

I have an on-going problem with Scalhotrod personally attacking me.

• 20:01, 27 April 2014, [114] Serious accusation (ownership, without evidence)
• 20:11, 27 April 2014, [115] Serious accusation (ownership, without evidence)
• 14:12, 5 May 2014, [116] Serious accusation (ownership, without evidence)
• 15:04, 5 May 2014, [117] Criticism in an inappropriate context (article talk page)
• 20:58, 9 May 2014 [118] Serious accusation ("history of activity of stacking Users in her favor and bringing in other Users to support her causes" - without evidence)

That last one especially bothers me. He asked the editor he posted that reply to to check my edit history.

As I said just yesterday to the Gun control arbitrators [119], I'd prefer that Scalhotrod start something specifically about me if he has a beef with me and my edits in general. Otherwise, as I've asked him repeatedly, I'd like him to keep it on content and take personal remarks to MY talk page, or at the very least notify me when he talks about me on other talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this is not at drama board level at this point. The OP has a huge plurality of edits on the article in question. Of the last 200 edits, including bot edits, the OP accounts for 156 edits. And if we remove the bots, the OP is well over 85% of the total edits on that page. No one else comes within a mile. The best way to avoid any possible aspersions about ownership is not to totally dominate any topic. Verb. sap. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW Collect has behaved, in fewer edits, even worse in my opinion then Scalhotrod. For example, without any discussion he tried to involve an arbitrator by making the same accusations as Scalhotrod, but without first discussing the issue at Lightbreather's talk page nor informing LB of the conversation. Collect removed a few of my edits (claiming I interpolated my opinion into the source}, but when I asked for clarification his response do not discuss my edits, or he doesn't respond.

I have taken a different approach with Scalhotrod, which is discussing very very thoroughly one edit I wanted to make to the article. It has been going on for several days, and in several more we might reach some agreement on the edit. Given how long this as taken I do not blame LB for taking a more direct approach, otherwise not much might get done. Thenub314 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The examples you give show me acting in an entirely proper manner, and I am unsure why you make unfounded accusations here. here. My post here was made to defuse the situation, and not to inflame it. The post to NYB was a "heads up" about an ArbCom case - as I find opening an RfC and then closing it with one's own position to be irregular. The concept of an RfC is that they are generally closed by uninvolved third parties. That this is heinous is beyond me.

The edit I made [120] with the edit summary "desire" is clear argumentation and violative of policy -- and if you cite an opinion - use quotation marks please - this is about the limit for this source was proper, yet was mischaracterized by the editor at hand as Reverted to revision 607787468 by Cwobeel (talk): There are quotation marks in there. And I intend to add more content about this aspect sourced to other books which was odd in my opinion. And having someone repeatedly ask to have someone repeat what has already been posted on the article talk page is not a gainful use of an article talk page at all.

The reply See what discussion, What are you talking about? This is the 2002 source you took out. Yes there is a separate section on a different source. Could you try again. Please comment about why you took what I wrote out? What did I add, that caused you to remove this because the source did not support it?

Is pure drama seeking-- the discussion was on the same page, and readily quite viewable.

@Guy it is precisely because I saw the same behaviour that led to the ArbCom case that I posted to NYB, and I trust you will note my temperate demeanor even when others seek drama. Cheers.Collect (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A "heads up" would be something neutral, not signaling out a particular editor. Your comments were "We have a new owner...". We can agree to disagree but I think this is as much of an accusation of ownership as the posts above. And as much claim otherwise you never addressed on the talk page why you reverted my edit, which started Cwobeel trying to put something similar in using a different source. But you've never addressed why you reverted my edit and started the mess, and it is not discussed on the talk page (if it is, please link the diff). I am not asking you to repeat, simply justify your revert. Thenub314 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I don't appreciate your calling this a "drama board." I only came here after numerous attempts to get Scal (and you, too, for that matter, as has been pointed out) to stop making personal comments and to just keep it on content. (As an aside, for anyone like me who doesn't know Latin, "Verb. sap." apparently means a word is enough to the wise. I don't know why Collect included it, but there you go.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I believe these articles are under discretionary sanctions? Are the parties aware? Guy (Help!) 09:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Both Scalhotrod and I were reminded on 6 May 2014. It was/is a little scary for me coming here. I simply want the personal stuff in inappropriate places to stop. (I've asked him to bring personal stuff to my talk page, or at least notify me when he brings it up elsewhere.) When he said that he wasn't "really interested in wasting time putting together the difs and evidence to report it [ownership],"[121] I then replied by asking him to keep his comments on content. Lightbreather (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think that some editors are behaving very BATTLEGROUNDy at the article under dispute. However, I don't think any of the editors' behavior is really actionable as far as administrator intervention goes. (I don't know how this changes in the light of ArbCom discretionary sanctions.) As far as I can tell, most of the drama seems to center around the use of various sources in that article. This is a content dispute, and so not something that ANI can deal with. Presumably what is needed is for someone otherwise uninvolved to check the sources under discussion. That would suggest that mediation is a viable approach, at least with an experienced editor. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If the comments cited above amount to personal attacks versus the attempt at communication and the sharing of viewpoints, then I've been "attacked" by more Editors and Admins than I care to remember. Lightbreather is a fairly new User and seems to be going through a "Wikipedia indoctrination process" of sorts that many others have gone through where active Editors are learning how to interact with this community and understand its processes. That said, her edit history and contributions speak for themselves. In my opinion, LB has a personal bias that affects her editing of gun related articles that she has alluded to here and here. Furthermore, I was not the first, nor the only Editor to bring up the issue of ownership activity with LB. The first instance I know of it was here. My impression of this Editor is that WP policy or procedure is relevant only when it suits her needs or objectives. Such as the recent RfC here regarding the article name of the Assault weapons legislation article and then a switch to a Move Request. I remember going through this stage and evolving past it, I hope that LB does the same.

I have a quote on my Talk page that states one of my viewpoints towards editing, "Here on Wikipedia, it's OK to be an idiot or do something stupid as long as you are willing to take responsibility and own up to it when you are called on it. - Source Unknown". I have "mea culpa'd" more times than I can remember and then I've thanked the person for explaining what I did wrong. I have even thanked them for the time it took to go through the process of explaining it. It is unfair of me to expect a similar attitude from Lightbreather, but I am entitled to expect her to be Civil and adhere to policy which includes not gaming the WP system or running roughshod over any editors that do not agree with her exact stance, exact wording of content, or use of a particular source. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Above is virtually the same as you posted two days ago (8 May 2014) on the GPUS talk page yesterday:

So you're admitting to POV editing like you alluded to here and here? --Scalhotrod ... 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[122]

So I'll say here what I said there: What the heck are you talking about? All that I've "alluded to" is WP:STEWARDSHIP, and Don't shoot the messenger. Translating that to "LB has a personal bias that affects her editing" is your work - not mine. (ALL editors have biases that (potentially) affect their editing. But what you discuss with colleagues in the day-to-day editing environment are the individual edits, not their biases.) I am asking again: If you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page, or, if you take it elsewhere, notify me so that I may defend myself. And either way, provide diffs, please. Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• As far as editing practice, I am a little bit concerned by the lack of clarity in relation to this this edit by Collect (which Thenub314 has specifically raised in this discussion). Simply restating the edit summary on the talk page isn't especially helpful when a request for clarification is raised on the talk page, and the cited source is quoted alongside or juxtaposed against the article text (which appears to have happened here). Collect, even if the query was expressed in a fashion which seemed dramatic, I am sure it would not be that difficult to clearly establish why or how the source is not being followed or which part of the article text amounted to editorial opinion being interpolated in the article. So could you please assist, with a view of resolving the concern raised by Thenub314 and so that this ANI does not become a matter about multiple users? In particular, in this section of the article talk page, can you clearly specify which part(s) of the article text you removed here was editor opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This was begun as a discussion of personal attacks by Scalhotrod. The attacks were largely "serious accusations" of ownership. When the data shows that an editor has made over 85% of the last 200 edits on an article it is a reasonable expectation that other editors will see ownership issues. To recognize that one editor is the dominant force on a page is not a personal attack. The case that this accusation was a personal attack is not made. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. First, there were two accusations. One is canvassing, the other, repeated at least three times, is ownership - and neither with evidence. Nowhere in WP:OWNERSHIP does it say that how many edits an editor makes, or a certain percentage of total edits to an article, is an example of ownership behavior. Nowhere. It does say to "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor," and that "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack." Further, WP:STEWARDSHIP says, "Unless an editor exhibits behavior associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part."

I am saying that unless someone has evidence against me that they want to cite with DIFFS, I'd like the accusations, attacks, and speculations to stop right now. Let's keep it on content. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a reasonable request. At some point, it becomes disruptive to continually make the same accusation without any intention of filing a report. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate it is a reasonable request if taken at face value, but there lies the crux of the problem. When we (myself and other editors) try to discuss edits with her, she makes statements that usually include something like (or to the effect of) "I believe...", "I feel...", "The source I'm using says...". In other words, she seems to take personally the edits that she makes. So then whenever anyone makes a comment about her edit style, she interprets it as a personal attack (hence this ANI) versus just an observation or comment on her pattern or style of editing. She then requests that "anyone with a problem" with her take it to her Talk page which makes no sense because we're trying to discuss content and WP content policy. Its this endless cycle that has become frustrating to several other editors who don't share her exact views. We would all like to be reasonable with LB if she would afford us the same courtesy. That includes backing down or just waiting long enough for others to have their views expressed so consensus can be reached. Patience is virtue that is sadly lacking on WP... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I ask you to stop making personal comments - or if you're going to, to provide diffs - and you answer with more personal comments and still no diffs? From WP:ETIQ: Argue facts, not personalities. And from WP:TALKNO: When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. Scal, please stop this now.

Is there an admin here who can help me with this? I just want the inappropriate personal comments to stop. Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather when are you going to figure out that talking "about" you is not a personal attack at least as WP defines it? You seem to interpret everything said about you as an attack. It's not and the sooner you realize this, the better off we will all be. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"You seem to interpret everything said about you as an attack"? Untrue. I gave specific examples - with diffs - at the top of this discussion showing you accusing me of ownership and canvassing. Those are attacks. The talking about me without accusations are not attacks, but they are poor practice per WP etiquette. Stop it... Argue facts, not personalities. Keep it on content, not character. Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod, I think you and I have been getting along better the past day or two, so in a friendly way I am going to level with you. While you may have meant it as a fair warning... Comments like "Do you know the WP:OWN case your building against yourself" (mobile edit so that's a paraphrase) just don't come across that way. LB does have a point. We are all heated, but I suspect if we all try to keep that in mind when we are making posts we can improve these articles without any of us needing formal sanctions. Thenub314 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm going to try a different approach on LB's Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to report, it looks like we're going to give peace a chance. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment I've checked a couple of threads on the Talk page of the "Gun politics in the US", and have noted that Scalhotrod seems to assume an authoritative tone with respect to content policies in one thread repeatedly making erroneous and false claims about WP:NOTABLE.

More specifically, in this thread Talk:Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#.22Speculative_nature.22, for example, it took three editors, Thenub314 [123], ArtifexMayhem[124] and AndytheGrump[125][126] to refute his baseless assertions on that policy.

I would say that there is a WP:BATTLE mentality evident in the comments by Scalhotrod"WP policy is frustrating, isn't it?"[127] in that thread. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

U, nothing like taking something out of context to spoil the mood, but everyone is entitled to their opinion... Thank you for looking into this, but we're working to get past the pettiness you're highlighting on our own. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been 'taken out of context' - Scalhotrod claimed that sources weren't valid because they didn't meet notability guidelines. It should be noted that Scalhotrod has been contributing to Wikipedia since 2007, and has over 3500 main-space edits. [128] I would find it astonishing that anyone with that much experience could be so fundamentally misinformed about elementary policy. Instead, I have to suggest that he clearly knows full well what policy is, but prefers to invent new ones on the fly when it suits his agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I do admit that I am not as "eloquent" nor as sharp tongued as Andy. Nor am I as inhibited by the guidelines of the site. But I know how creative you are when it comes to seeing varying perspectives on an issue or comment. I understand the policy and was just making my point badly. Nub and I continued out conversation to our mutual satisfaction on his Talk page, but you probably forgot to "check first" again. There was no intent to "invent" anything.... :) Thank you for your input Andy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to trawl through your edits elsewhere to see that you misrepresented policy in an attempt to justify removing content you didn't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course Andy, there are lots of things you "don't need to" do, but you do anyway. Its why we all love you you warm, fuzzy curmudgeon...! Happy Monday! :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally, it seems Collect has not adhered to my request above, so I have repeated it on the user talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the onus is on Collect, but the content is being discussed and addressed on the Talk page of "Gun Politics" and some has already been added to the main NRA article. Unless you have some burning desire to keep "pointing fingers" does this need to continue anywhere? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have no desire to point fingers, and merely gave Collect the benefit of the doubt. The idea is to find ways to resolve issues rather than let them fester, and its worth recording if/when he is prepared to follow that through. That said, I have just now noticed that matter has been raised as evidence in the currently open arbitration case so it does not need further follow up over here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I just finished reading all this and thoroughly looked over the original two editors contributions and a few others. Observations: Many have engaged in uncivil behavior, ownership of articles and failed to edit in a neutral manner. Lightbreather brought the complaint and a boomerang is a strong possibility because what she has accussed others of she has in fact repeatedly done. Lightbreathers repeated contributions to the same articles speak for themselves. If this is not a clear care of ownership what is? Also noticed another complaint down below from lightbreather in which she failed to notify the editor she acccussed of "Smells fishy" to which when queried she played dumb. It appears as another attempt to run off editors and the IP involved appeared none to happy. Would a neutral and unbiased admin look this over please? Thanks 208.54.35.173 (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Also noticed this complaint by Lightbreather: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=608612163#Clarification_request:_Gun_control_.28Gaijin42.29 While not an original tactic to drive others away to own an article it presents strong evidence of gaming the system. Is an Arbcom discussion appropriate now. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Scal and I made peace. This last complaint by IP user 208.54.35.173 smells fishy, too. I suspect he/she is the same user from that fishy discussion. Can someone close this discussion, please? Lightbreather (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• You changed your tactics when this attempt to silence SCALHOTROD failed. I just posted a complaint that is relative to this so please leave open. This appears to be another attempt to Game the system by Lightbreather in my opinion. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Adding current content

A MrBill3 decided my additional text, sourced from a recent news publication, should not be printed without citation, which I had omitted in error. I can add it, of course but the text has gone. Is it stored? Where do I add the citation if the text is missing? I do not wish to have to retype it as it was a task in itself. I read lots of text which is noted 'citation needed'. This would have been a better first step. I would have been able to add it quickly. This is new - I have added/updated text before. In fact it is noteworthy that in one piece I updated, there was elsewhere text relating to an anticipated action for 2013. Clearly this either happened or did not, but it is now text which does not make sense. Is it just left to anyone who happens to feel like establishing the facts of the matter in 2014? Cheers, djRayC — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjRayC (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not an ANI issue, but I'm guessing this is the revert being complained of. Anyway, I've notified MrBill3 of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Dj. Yes, every edit ever made at Wikipedia is maintained in the article history (with a few exceptions when admin need to delete something ugly). You can click the "View History" button on the upper of the article page to see it. For future reference, you should check out the Teahouse. It is staffed with a bunch of exceptionally nice people who hang out solely to answer questions like this. They are willing to answer any basic questions you have about Wikipedia. This board you posted to is called ANI, and is really reserved for problems like serial vandalism and when editors are fighting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Speaking of ugly, is anyone monitoring the oversight email? I sent something there about 3 hours ago and have gotten no response. John from Idegon (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Unsourced, unencylopedic content with improper text formatting and talk, Viva La Vega STiki! Seriously though anyone finding problems with my use of STiki please feel free to bring the issue to my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Denial (IDHT) regarding denialism and Denial

Okay, people, it's time to move on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has "strongly objected" to my restoring links to Climate change_denial, HIV/AIDS denialism and Holocaust denial to the "See also" section of the article Denial diff. Stating, "The desire to include these links here seems to be little more than a cheesy wish to pathologize points of view one editor disagrees". Another editor has expressed his disagreement with the objection diff twice diff and explained, "I do not think I have ever heard anybody in academia use the term "Freudian" when referencing denial." I provided references which clearly support denialism as related to denial with very closely aligned quotes from the Denial article and reference diff, a book Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life and a study on "psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures" diff, a book with an entire chapter discussing psychological denial and the holocaust and article on "on the psychological and social function of remembering the holocaust" diff. The response was, "That's not nearly good enough...doesn't mention Freudian ideas...an article mainly about Freudian notions" diff. The article denial states the theory was "postulated by Freud" but discusses the modern psychological concept. Repeated sourced explanations have been made by another editor at Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism#Add an AIDS Denialists who have died section, diff, diff, diff (by another editor specifically objecting to the removal of the links), diff and diff. FKC's repeated insistence that refs don't mention Freud is IDHT to the point of being disruptive. Statements like "I invite MrBill3 to stop using vague accusations of "denial" as a cheap way of attacking theories or points of view he disagrees with" and "little more than a cheesy wish to pathologize points of view one editor disagrees" are inappropriately directed at an editor. As are such statements as, "a blathering irrelevance", "you and other editors want to play the stupid and childish game" I used Twinkle to notify FKC I felt he was being unconstructive diff (I should have edited the wording of the template for clarity.) To which the response was that I had falsely accused FKC of vandalism diff. I responded to clarify, explaining that I found his behavior on talk pages tendentious and that I made no accusation of vandalism diff. FKC responded that unconstructive editing is another term for vandalism (that's not what I read on WP:Disruptive editing). Note also the disruptive behavior in the section Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 13#Lead, described as condescending diff. I feel User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has engaged in a pattern of disruptive (and rude) behavior on talk pages. I think implementation of discretionary sanctions is called for. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) While I partially party to these exchanges, I can't really comment further as MrBill3 has managed to summerize the relevant exchanges quite well above. However, I can certainly echo the sentiments as far as my experience. As a new editor, It was most unpleasant to have my first exchange on the site with another editor as brazen as was apparent withUser:FreeKnowledgeCreator. Being immediately confrontational, dismissive, and rude for anyone did that not share his viewpoint seemed, at the very least, not in good faith of WP:CIVIL Also reverting articles, when it became obvious they were for ideological and not evidentiary reasons was clearly not called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I agree with MrBill3. User:FreeKnowledgeCreator is disruptive and not open to discussion. I think a topic ban would be helpful. Bhny (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) A quick note... Vandalism is a very specific term and a very powerful accusation to make on Wikipedia. To make a claim of vandalism means that you're claiming that an editor is intentionally damaging a page; whether the motive is to be funny, to slander someone, or something else, it means that the editor is knowingly making the page worse. Disruptive editing is a much broader term that can be attributed to all manner of well-meaning but mistaken edits, or even good edits done improperly (such as through edit-warring). For FreeKnowledgeCreator to insist that they are synonymous is dangerously incorrect. -- Atama頭 18:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Let's be clear. FKC did not accuse anyone of vandalism. He commented that he was being falsely accused of it because MrBill3 added a boilerplate template to FKC's talk page saying that his "unconstructive" edit had been removed. This is the very template that is routinely put on the talk pages of vandals, so it's hardly an unwarranted reaction. That is just the kind of thing that pisses-off regular editors no end. Paul B (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) No, I thought it was pretty clear that FKC didn't accuse anyone of vandalism, he claimed that he was being accused of vandalism. I never said otherwise, I only made the statement that disruption and vandalism aren't synonymous. My point is that if someone says you're being disruptive, and you claim that you're being called a vandal, that's a major escalation. Misrepresenting what someone else gas claimed is very much an "unwarranted reaction". Also, technically the template that was left was Template:Uw-disruptive1, which is different from Template:Uw-vandalism1 (they are close but not identical). I will agree, though, that leaving a template meant for a new user on the talk page of an established editor (with over 5 years and over 8,000 contributions) comes across as condescending. A template that asks someone to "familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines" and "information about these at the welcome page" is not appropriate here. I don't agree with WP:DTTR in general (templates can save time and also give neutral notifications to avoid canvassing), and I don't mind receiving appropriate templates myself, but in this particular situation I think that was a pretty bad template to leave. -- Atama頭 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support topic ban. I see quite a bit of evidence suggesting that this editor has a problem working with others. Note, I now and then edit the AIDS Denialism page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I was asked to comment here, even though I've only made one talk page contribution, which was not related to the "denialism" issue. There are two issues here. One is whether or not the article on "denial" should be added to "see also". I think this is legitimate content dispute. There are good reasons for saying it should not (to deny something is not the same as being "in denial", and, yes, to make such an equation can be a tactic to denigrate a position one disagrees with). There are also good arguments for noting that sources commenting on some prominent denialist activists, suggesting that their views may be motivated more by a need to deny they are sick than by rationally arrived-at convictions. I would suggest that such arguments should integrated into the article rather than loosely and uninformatively linked via a "see also" to an article called "Denial". Obviously, the second issue is user conduct. Yes, I can see that FKC has been a bit short and sometimes dismissive, but he has presented arguments. I don't see much evidence that this is all "one way". Paul B (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Strongly oppose topic ban - I got a bit caught up in the whole "is disruption the same as vandalism" argument, but I never commented on this proposal. I looked over the talk page discussion and I don't see anything from FreeKnowledgeCreator that is worse than a minor violation of WP:CIVIL. The worst examples of behavior I've seen are to call someone's suggestions "morbid and pointless", or "blathering irrelevance", and to suggest that people "want to play the stupid and childish game of labeling points of view you disagree with". But all of those observations are given evidence to back them up. I personally don't like to communicate with other editors that way, but I think templating someone and then bringing the disagreement to ANI is a very bad way to go about it. Also, I agree with FKC that MrBill3 is calling him "tendentious" because he continues to disagree, which to me is much worse than even the most aggressive comments that FKC himself has made on that page. At the very least FKC is continuing discussion, where MrBill3 seems to be trying to shut down dissenting discussion with these actions. -- Atama頭 22:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I agree that I probably have been rude at times, but taking the issue to ANI is a wild over-reaction. My comments were intended not so much to be rude, as simply to be honest - I understand that they may come across as unpleasant, but I think it can actually be worse, in some cases, to conceal one's real views or opinions simply to avoid hurting people's feelings. It appears that several editors are using my candor as an excuse to gang up on me and stop me from editing articles related to HIV/AIDS denialism. I wonder why they should be so concerned about my edits as to feel this necessary. Anyone who looks through the revision history of the relevant articles - HIV/AIDS denialism and Denial - will see that I have made only a relatively small number of edits there, and that I have never engaged in revert wars. I understand, and I respect the fact, that consensus at both articles may well go against me. So why the obsession with placing a topic ban on me? I'll probably avoid this topic area in future anyway. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Someone close this. No discussion is taking place, and this obviously shouldn't have been brought to ANI anyway. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:86.174.240.211 - obvious troll is an obvious troll, impersonation of an embassy worker

Now there has been an issue regarding User:86.174.240.211, who is not registered with an account on Wikipedia and is an IP user.

On the Filipino people article, the first issue was that he added biased information on the infobox.

By the messages that he left on my talk page, it is now obvious that he is a troll who is vandalizing pages, using personal threats and impersonating an embassy worker.

Here are the messages he left on my talk page,

"Would you like to stop vandalizing wikipedia?, it destroys the filipino and the country's reputation. I work on behalf of the Spanish embassy in Manila and your stubbornness result's the foreign people's bad oppinnion towards the philippine people."

"The King of Spain is going to read your messages and this article, so you better stop your stupidity. code name: amor"

This must need immediate attention. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

I have reported both users for edit warring: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PacificWarrior101 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: ) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:86.174.240.211 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: ). G S Palmer (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked both editors per the report at WP:ANEW (PacificWarrior101 and the IP). They've been edit-warring since May 11, and it has been pretty much non-stop, with reverts getting more and more frequent (I count 9 reverts by PacificWarrior101 in the past 24 hours, and 7 from the IP). The article talk page was last edited May 4. Neither editor has been blocked previously, so I thought 24 hours was a reasonable duration. -- Atama頭 21:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the edit warring blocks, but in light of comments impugning the intelligence of people from the Philippines, and the possible impersonation of a diplomatic worker, I think a block of greater length would not be unreasonable for the 86' IP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For edit-warring, I judged both editors to be equally culpable. The edits to the article itself from the IP aren't clearly disruptive. I felt that an equal block on both sides to be warranted. The talk page comments from the IP, however, are a different story. If someone wants to block the IP for longer on that basis, I won't object. Insulting the people of the Philippines is a personal attack, though I'm not sure I'd extend the block based on that alone (or some ridiculous story about contacting the King of Spain). I looked over the IP's contributions over the past few days (at other articles aside from this one) and if they're vandalizing, it's a pretty subtle form. -- Atama頭 22:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What's really ridiculous is that 86.174.240.211 account geolocates to the UK. So, all of those assertions about working at a Spanish embassy in the Philippines is clearly a lie (if it wasn't already obvious). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I left the IP an additional warning about the personal attacks and other nonsense. If they continue after the block expires the next block will be for much longer. -- Atama頭 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP is at it again. G S Palmer (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, it's just one change to the article. I have that article on my watchlist. -- Atama頭 01:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: the geolocation, I'd seen that myself, but it's the general fact that the IP is claiming affiliation to a diplomatic organization that I find offensive. Much in the same way as assassinating a diplomat is a crime against the law of nations, impersonating one (even poorly) on Wikipedia is tantamount in my mind to falsely claiming to be a law enforcement officer in a dispute. It's just harmful to the community in general when someone does a bullshit claim of authority (whether it's claiming to be a cop, admin, or something else), and not the sort of joking around we should be taking lightly. That's how I see it anyway. I see nothing wrong with the stance taken in this case, just that I would have blocked the IP longer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hitler, Mengele and IP

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

---

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

IP editor 189.249.64.83 seems to be obsesses with adding Hitler and Mengele to Jewish articles. Please see if you want to warn or straightforward block him. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I left a blatant vandal warning on the ip's talk page. If there's further vandalism from this ip, leave a note at WP:AIV. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked by Bishonen. Reprehensible editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If everybody'd stop edit conflicting me, I'd really appreciate it. Warn? You're kidding. No warnings for stuff like that. Blocked for a week, and thanks for the alert. BTW, could somebody proficient in these matters check if it's an open proxy, please? Bishonen | talk 00:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

It doesn't appear to be an open proxy. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, Kevin. Bishonen | talk 06:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

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

User:NLZ06 - not quite clear what they're up to

NLZ06 joined Wikipedia 6 days ago, but shows a remarkable enthusiasm for constructing new pages, some surprisingly complete (like Kelly Hayes-Raitt).

Thus far they've managed NavTech Security Pty Ltd (A7), Visionborne (G11, previously A7ed and G11ed, and I wonder if the G11ed content was from a previously deleted version), Austin Hollins (created as copyvio of [129], AFDed, edited by other editors), Visionbooks (G11), Dyacon (A7, G11), Dyacon Weather Instruments (A7), W3 kids (G11), Kool Living Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center (A7, G12). Not yet deleted are Rezvani BEAST, Rezvani (both hagiographic in tone, and really, two articles?), a company logo (mislabelled as under CC license, I'll bet), Kelly Hayes-Raitt (well formed article, but massive puff piece about how marvellous she is, and it does seem _slightly_ remarkable that a new editor would come up with that lot), removal of an OR tag without any edits to fix issues, an edit rather favourable to the subject of the article, and a page blanking and subsequent reasonless AFD at Banc de Binary, a page with a history of COI editors (in sockfarms, sometimes; indeed, originally stemming from a morning277 sock).

I don't know what's going on here - WP:COMPETENCE, a misguided PR person, or what - but I don't think this user is really acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the range of topics, I'd say it's a paid editor, although not an awfully competent one. For one thing, they haven't quite figured out how turn bare urls into proper references. Per this conversation, the editor says he/she helps "friends" who supply the text and he/she adds references and puts it onto Wikipedia. If so, NLZ06 has quite a variety of friends. I suspect the Kelly Hayes-Raitt article is full of spurious references, almost none of which are independent of her, e.g. this one (scroll down) to "verify" that she "is a popular lecturer at colleges and other venues". Many of the others are to blogs. All the references in that article need checking. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Same person as the blocked User:Newzealand123. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted the article creations that haven't been significantly edited by others. Only Austin Hollins remains and it is at AfD.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jpgordon, did you block on the basis of checkuser? If not, there may be more socks. I'm mighty suspicious of the fact that NLZ06 uploaded this image to Commons today and, lo and behold, an article about that person sprang fully formed an hour earlier complete with infobox and by an entirely new user with their first edit, who then added the image an hour later. See Robert Lyn Nelson. The initial version was the worst piece of promotional drivel I've seen for a long time. I've since taken my red pencil to it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I only checkusered as far as that one user and the one I mention above. However, what caught my attention was that AFD for Banc De Binary, which has been the locus for some questionable editing practices. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In this revision one of the IP socks _changes my suggested outcome_ in the AFD. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the IP changing Pinkbeast's comment from "Weak keep" to "Delete" and !voting "delete" himself, there are three four other SPAs with registered accounts !voting delete who have registered in the last 2 days, two three of them within minutes of !voting at the AfD as their first edit. I've marked them all as SPAs, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary needs eyes. Voceditenore (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that discussion caught my eye, too. Lots of strange stuff going on there - it has all the appearance of a large group of either socks or friends conspiring to get an article deleted. The delete !votes are coming thick and fast, but the reasons given appear to be constructed without any reference to the actual article. Not to mention the changing of a !vote noted above. Would a speedy close of the AfD be appropriate? GoldenRing (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary needs eyes, as does Banc de Binary itself. There's a large PR and SEO operation promoting Banc de Binary; the first 100 or so Google results are mostly promotional, and the SEC and CFTC enforcement actions have been pushed to page 3 in Google search results. The problems on Wikipedia may be part of a larger strategy to de-emphasize the bad news. The effort to delete the article suggests that is the case. John Nagle (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor with serious competence problems

I ran into this editor after they created Ain Shams University Faculty of Law as a copyright violation. They've now created it 3 times. The first 2 were copy and paste of part of [130] which is more or less gibberish. The 3rd attempt changed a few words but was still copyvio and gibberish (maybe that's a bit unkind but I don't know how else to describe it. Perhaps the source is a poor translation of something. I also put a PROD tag on Angie Abdallah . I'm at a loss as to what to do about Sharak (film). This edit turned a redirect to Miss Egypt back into an article about someone who won Miss Egypt and says "Donia Hamed' , born in Egypt , She got the title of Miss Egypt in 2010, working in the field of the stock market, it is also fluent in many languages​​, have announced that they do not think in the direction of the representation." On the plus side they've discovered how to use infoboxes. Anyone think this editor would benefit from mentoring? They've ignored the copyright warnings, I don't know if they can even understand them. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be a google translation of the Arabic article on Ms Hamed [131]. Paul B (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• After reading their user page [132], I am not so sure mentoring would work. They haven't been communicating, and mentoring only works when the editor wants to be mentored, and they have a sufficient grasp of the English language. They probably should limit themselves to small editing, or no editing on the English Wikipedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be helpful if someone conversant in Arabic tried contacting Egy writer and conveying our concerns with his/her contributions. Otherwise, I agree that mentoring is unlikely to be helpful. I recall a similar situation dealing with User:MRDU08; attempts to contact the user in Spanish were made, but the disruption continued. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I never remembered to add his name, Egy writer (talk · contribs). He can write in English but see Talk:Ain Shams University Faculty of Law (which I have turned into a redirect). He also created Category:Schools of law in Egypt and added the law school to it manually. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Really pissed off IP

During new page patrol, I nominated Ronnie Lee Smith for deletion. This has REALLY pissed off Fascistdestroyer (talk · contribs), and coincidentally after that user was blocked for vandalism, an IP is now stalking me with various personal attacks and vandalizing various pages. [133][134] [135][136]

If someone could take care of this that'd be great. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Prior to seeing this thread, I had already blocked the IP for block evasion, as well as semi-protecting the article and AfD threads which are two of their targets of vandalism and personal attacks when disrupting the project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you in a particularly lenient and kindly mood today, Barek? I've extended the Fascistdestroyer block to 72 hours for block evasion. Aren't those long weird IPs always static and with extremely low risk of collateral damage, or have I got that wrong? Because I'd like to extend the IP block also, so as not to tempt them to further evasion. Also, if the IP block is shorter, they might even think they're OK to use it during Fascistdestroyer's block, you never know. Bishonen | talk 07:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

They're never completely static, but they do tend to be assigned to the same person (well, connection) longer than most IPv4 addresses are. In this case, I don't think there would be any risk of collateral damage in extending the IP block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that if I didn't know Wikipedia policies from Adam, created an article about somebody I thought was important, only to see it tag bombed in the way I currently see the article here (is this a record for "most tags on an article"), then I'd be a little annoyed myself. There's no real reason anyone couldn't have done a little homework and cleaned the article up first, rather than leaving it with 8 gazillion Facebook and Youtube references (give or take a few) on it, and especially leaving the potentially BLP violating content about his arrest in. I'm with Andy in that I can't easily decide which way to vote on the AfD - it depends what good sources are out there, if any. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that we don't have a blanket ban on SPS and non-RS either. We require RS to establish notability. We require RS to support challenged statements within an article. Beyond this though, we're free to use non-RS as supplements.

All too often (and usually involving the same handful of editors) an article like this gets tagged for OMG SPS!!, then chunks of content are removed as "tainted" by such SPS (policy doesn't recognise this tainting) and then the whole article deleted for "too many non-RS sources". Neither of these actions have policy behind them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. What tends to happen is that newcomers put in Facebook and Youtube sources because they're easy to find and dime a dozen, but the real work of writing (or even rewriting) the article where better local or national news sources are actually out there tends to take a back seat to "zomg CSD A7 lol" giddiness, presumably because the former takes far more effort and skill than the latter. Since a typical WP regular would probably not miss the article, these tend to fall by the wayside. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Tommy Pinball

Replaces, with no explanation whatsoever, and a reference that can't be checked, the words 'bin Laden' with the word 'Sammy' in our article on Osama bin Laden. [137] Is reverted (not by me), so adds it again. [138]. I revert, and warn for vandalism. :Tommy Pinball responds by posting the warning back on my page - and then tries to justify the edit on Talk:Osama bin Laden. His response to me stating that "There is nothing remotely encyclopaedic in dumping a random and entirely unexplained reference bin Laden as 'Sammy' into the article in the manner you did - if it wasn't vandalism, it was a darned good impression of it" is to post "You are a prick. This illustrates the difference between an encyclopedic and an unencyclopedic fact." [139]. Not the actions of a contributor fit to edit such a significant article, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I just gave the user a strong warning before I even saw this report. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

The funny thing is that the reference seems to be real. Since I can't check the article myself, I can't say if it supports the claim that bin Laden could be called "Sammy", but the consensus about referring to the subjects of articles seems to be that we use the surname rather than given names or nicknames. Anyway, while I wouldn't strictly call this vandalism, I would call his conduct in light of the revert incivility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: and the effect of my warning was interesting. They immediately posted the warning back to me, in the very same manner as I had warned them about doing on Andy's page. Blocked for 48 hours. I think this can be closed. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Good block. Such editors' disruption is rarely prevented by simple warnings. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And there's an unblock request already. On fairly non-substantive grounds (in essence requesting the block be amended because what he was engaged in wasn't vandalism in the strict sense). Recommend declining. Strictly speaking, he was blocked for disruption, and the length Bish chose is well within reason. In a more legalese sense, I would call this harmless error at worst. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on their page, offering to change "vandalism" for "disruptive editing" in the block log, even though the "Sammy" business looked awfully like "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". (Well, I can't actually change the log, but I can put in an update.) What can I say, I'm soft. I agree 48 hours wasn't much. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

I get the feeling that if you will wait 49 hours, you will be able to kill two birds with one stone in regard to the block log. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Indopug - behavior concerns

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

---

By judging his talk page history this user seem to possess a usual habit of blanking talk page messages. And even marks a regular user as a troll as seen here. This user makes changes with his personal inclinations and doesn't co-operate with other users even replies with a borderline threatening tone which is pretty much apparent here. Shallowmead077 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you want done here? Doc talk 11:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A spanking! A spanking! On a more serious note, I think I'll assume Indopug just likes to keep his talk page clear in the same way I remember to delete emails I don't need any more. This edit suggests he is perfectly au fait with policies. I wouldn't worry about it, unless he's disrupting articles, which I can't see he is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Mongo, that appears to be due a spat noted here, over these reverts. User who template regulars for vandalism when it clearly isn't vandalism can probably expect something testy in return. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

All this looks like a diversion from the SPI just filed by Indopug regarding the complaintant.--MONGO 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of copyrighted material by Karenmanroe

Karenmanroe (talk) has added copyrighted material to Nathan Bryan (scientist) three times now diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. They have already received two warnings for the first two additions and ignored them, so I doubt further warnings will do any good. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, -- Diannaa (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ needs to be blocked, or at least topic-banned

Russell Targ has an account as Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his IP appears to be 108.68.105.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• All of his edits focus on his article. He is a single purpose account.
• He has tried mass censorship of the article.
• He was blocked for edit warring, only to resume edit warring a day after the block ended.
• He socks on his IP address to continue to edit war
• He has accused the site of libel, and said that he is "prepared to take all necessary measures public, Internet or private to discover a path to redressing this libel." He claims that this is not a legal threat, but how is it not?
• Per @Goblin Face: (see), Targ has been doing off-site recruiting for meatpuppets.

Targ is not here to build an encyclopedia, but promote his work and whitewash mainstream science's views on his work. If he was a nobody, I don't believe we'd put up with this. He needs to be blocked unless he agrees to a topic ban on articles relating to him or his work. If there's an appearance of further meatpuppetry, off-site collusion, or backscratching between him and Josephson, I'd say an indef would be in order. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The thread this is attached to is dead. You won't get any visibility here. Copy it to the bottom as a new section. I only saw it because you mentioned it at ANEW and I knew what to look for.--v/r - TP 19:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, moved it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If I see this right, I have to add that there are apparent copyright issues at Russell Targ as well as at Sensory leakage, Remote viewing and Harold E. Puthoff vs. [140] if I can find that much trouble in a single Google search [141], and the first one I tried, ... there's probably more. Sadly, I am out for the day, and don't have time to dissect, investigate or report the breadth of this. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Wikiblame indicates that it wasn't him, and it'd be against his MO. He's trying to white-wash the parts about his work being pseudoscience. That part does need to be more paraphrased, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ on his account Torgownik (talk · contribs) has a history of removing reliable references from his article [142], inserting personal commentary into his article and telling people to not edit his article [143], attacking editors as "biased" against ESP [144], repeatedly removing any mention of "pseudoscience" from his article, which he has admitted to [145], ranted on various Wikipedia boards with threats [146] [147] and another rant here telling Wikipedia to remove pseudoscience from his article whilst promoting nonsensical psychic claims [148]. He refuses to listen to what anyone has said. Considering Targ is now on blogs and forums asking people to come edit his article, this is a case of meat puppetry. I think a topic ban would be suitable here from editing his own article or related parapsychological articles.

Targ has also been causing trouble on his IP address deliberately 108.68.105.17 (talk · contribs) i.e. section blanking references he doesn't like from his article [149] and spamming the same rant he posted on his account [150]. The meat puppetry is also an issue because we now have another IP 70.164.250.214 (talk · contribs) copying Targ's rant onto the article itself and deleting references, example [151].

Targ is also a friend with Brian Josephson (talk · contribs) who has also been copying Targ's rant on the talk-page of the article[152]. Josephson had no interest in Targ's article until Targ posted about it on his face book account, this is another case of meat puppetry. Also note Josephson has been edit-warring on the article and removing the claim remote viewing is pseudoscience, example [153]. Josephson may be a separate issue but I could easily list many diffs, he has caused trouble on a number of parapsychological articles I.e. by trying to delete certain references or arguing with people on talk-pages because he psychic beliefs are not supported on the article. I think a way to resolve this would to ban both Josephson and Targ from editing parapsychology articles because they have shown they are not here to build an encyclopedia but just cause disruption. Goblin Face (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

JUST A NOTE: There is a discussion at the COI noticeboard about this issue, at this section. -- Atama頭 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe Decker, you were correct there was half a line copied from a book word for word. I have removed it. Goblin Face (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Goblin Face: Cool, thanks. I assume you caught that fragment in all four articles I listed? And Ian--thanks for reminding me of WikiBlame, and pointing out that the issue wasn't from this user. I apologize for that being a distraction to the main questions here. Best, --Joe Decker (alt) (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked a number of accounts and IPs involved in this, warned Brian, and semiprotected the Targ talk page to act as some layer of defense against additional meatpuppetry. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman:: Thank you.

Otherwise, could we just assume that the next block will be an indef? Particularly in the absence of other improvements and prior serious problems? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say that anyone's next block is going to be an indef, because I prefer to use the least punitive measures possible that successfully protects the encyclopedia. In some cases, and this certainly might be one of them, that next step is in fact an indef. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Indef-blocking or indef-self-topic-banning subjects of WP articles because they say we're biased is a really aggressive thing to do. Try to think how something like that is going to sound outside the echo chamber of our own little cult here. At least limit yourself to doing one week, two week, three week, four, but not one to infinity! I know there are people on WP who have literally been blocked more than 20 times and still edit. I think it would be more productive to suggest a positive rather than a negative solution - urge these people to try doing a significant amount of editing about some topics they don't have much personal familiarity with, in order to get a feel for how WP editing is supposed to work. Wnt (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Like What Wnt said. Let's get a desirable outcome out of this.--v/r - TP 04:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"urge these people to try doing a significant amount of editing about some topics they don't have much personal familiarity with"? Yeah, right. Targ is going to be really keen on editing Wikipedia to take his mind off things, isn't he...

Ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure he'd like to "improve" the articles on Uri Geller, Ingo Swann and so on. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wnt is completely right. We should not ban biography subjects from the talk pages of the articles on them without compelling reason (active credible legal threats being an obvious example). We should block them for escalating periods of they edit-war on the article or engage in other disruptive behaviour. We should listen to what they have to say, collapse arguments that have been made and discussed previously, and restrict "brand new editors" recruited outside, from causing more disruption. Targ has a right to his opinion, even though it's overwhelmingly rejected by the relevant scientific community. He does not have a right to endlessly re-state that remote viewing is not pseudoscience, because the problem is not that we call it this, but that reliable independent sources do. We point that out, we damp down attempts to string a futile argument along, and we concentrate on improving the article.

We all know that an article that does not, say, include some facet of a previous career, is an omission by editors based on not looking hard enough. To the subject this appears as if Wikipedia is deliberately suppressing legitimate achievements. It's wrong, but it's a completely understandable view.

So I urge continued patient explanation, and low tolerance to outbreaks of rhetorical exuberance on any side. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've provisionally unblocked Targ, and given a much better explanation of why I originally blocked him on his talk page than my crappy initial block message. Hopefully he takes it to heart, but I will be keeping an eye on him, as I am sure others will be. Canvassing, something that's hard to perceive as anything but a legal threat, socking, and editwarring is a pretty long list of things to have racked up in his short tenure here, but hopefully he'll get the memo. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I personally have a high tolerance for patiently explaining things to biography subjects even in the face of relentless repetition of declined or meritless demands, and I think that Targ is not likely to cause much disruption as he is not much interested in anything other than his own biography. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/C_i_wood

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

---

From examining this history, it looks like a potentially compromised account.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Has been indeffed by DragonflySixtyseven. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

IIIraute NPOV and consistent abuse of Germany Related Pages

The user has a pattern of disruptively editing themes related to Germans, German Culture, and Slavic influence in European Culture and History. This may mean minor edits such as including that Peter Thiel is 'a german american' in the lead of that article while deleting evidence of Angela Merkel's polish heritage in her article. The user has edited over ten pages in this pattern in the last month alone. The pattern is to delete references to other cultures and to highlight the evidence of German culture. The user is doing so over a seemingly broad variety of articles, but when specific edits are looked at the pattern emerges. Please see his contributions in the last month alone. This is a long term pattern of disruption which lead to his being blocked in Germany wikipedia, for 'personal attacks'- he vociferously defended a famed holocaust denier as a 'historian' which lead to his permanent blocking.

His pattern is subtle and aggressive, discouraging changes to his edits by citing WP:BOLD and attempting to sound authoritative.

However the pattern of NPOV edits on German topics is apparent when looking at his contributions.

These are only recent cases this list is extremely non-exhaustive, only dealing with topics he edited in the past month (other then the one leading to the banning in Germany, in some cases the whole page is brought up, in others specific diffs - Please look at all of his contributions to see the pattern

[154] - banned in German Wikipedia for supporting a Holocaust denier as a historian, and for personal attacks - [155]

[156] - attempting to eliminate talk of Merkel's Polish roots. [157] - trying to Germanize Mozart's roots - though he is widely thought of as Austrian. [158] and [159] emphasizing German nature of production of Grand Budapest Hotel, while deleting other references. [160] and [161] - overly emphasizing the German business owenrship of a DB Schenker [162] and [163] - fighting over the extent to which Merkel's Grandfather was Polish/German [164] and [165] - pushing the perspective that Einstein was German though he was Jewish and fled German aggression. [166] and [167] arguing that being German born deserves to be in the lead of the story about an american. [168] - trying to exclude Turkic languages from European Languages [169] trying to exclude certain ethnicities from European Cuisines [170] - emphasizing that Dutch people are heavily influenced by Germans.

He is also in an ongoing conflict with - Volunteer Marek see, and other discussions disputes etc/ [171] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyoksorta (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC) (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

Well, yes. This has been a pattern for IIIraute ever since he arrived on Wikipedia. A severe case of WP:OWN on any thing related to Germany or Germans, a ... very narrow, definition of European-ness (see diffs above), complete inability to engage people with different opinions in a constructive manner, a whole lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (as on Angela Merkel article, among others), lots of reverting and edit warring per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, continuous attempts to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies by quoting them when they don't apply (latest example again, at Angela Merkel) or by making them up and of course the ever present cries of WP:CONSENSUS!, by which s/he seems to me "I do what I want". Dealing with this user is such a pain that even myself, who can put up with a lot of nonsense and is used to dealing with trouble makers of all kinds, have really tried to avoid him, except in cases where he's really over the top.

Other users (for example @Kutsuit:) [[172] seem to have had a similar experience.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add [173] changing the ethnicity on Kirsten Dunst - similar to [174] with Peter Thiel. Also note the emphasis here on Sandra Bullocks distant German Relations [175] while trying to minimize Angela Merkel's direct relationship to an ethnically polish grandfather [176](Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Another popular topic in his line of editing [177] (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Arguing that Nazi Germany should be called the Third Reich... [178] (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Of all those claims I have only knowledge of the dispute about Merkel and I must say that Mostlyoksorta grossly misrepresents the issue. Illraute didn't bother about her grandfather being described as part-Polish until an account specifically created for this and Volunteer Marek tried to push for undue coverage, something opposed by everyone else [179][180] Most recently Volunteer Marek has started another revert-war for more influence for her grandfather in the article, this time with an image.--walkee^talkee 14:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of the diffs being offered here are months old and, like those involving Kirsten Dunst or the Nazi Germany/Third Reich, are a content dispute rather than a conduct problem. I see disagreement here, not disruption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz - one of my concerns is that the disagreement is NPOV when a user is consitently seeking out to promote the idea that certain famous individuals are German, certain countries are 'not european', basically promoting a German nationalist idea. That is NPOV. No matter if some of the content disputes have merit. Also, I tried to pick more recent diffs but the entire pattern of the users 'work' dating back to account creating follows this pattern. That is why I call would call it persistent abuse or persistent NPOV (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Not assuming good faith - getting a bit crazy over here

Hi everyone. I hate to do this, but, as an admin and someone who is involved in the discussion, I thought it was best to bring this up here so others can sort things out. The discussion taking place here has had the term prude thrown around multiple times, and I hope he'll forgive me, but, User:HiLo48 is not assuming good faith and is really taking things pretty extreme - calling people's comments stupid[181], claiming people are attacking him, etc. Perhaps he needs to take a break, but, even when I posted a statement asking people to be civil he told me it was attacking [182]. It's really wearing me out, and other people involved in the discussion. Perhaps someone can come by and take a look, or at least remind people to be civil, since I'm not getting anywhere... Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Very typical and long-time behavior of this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Personal Attacks by HiLo48 against Collingwood26 is one I could find, and I know there are others. G S Palmer (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope that doesn't mean it's OK for them to act like that. I hope someone can step in and be bold. But, I haven't interacted with them before so I didn't know this was standard behavior. Not too healthy, that's for sure! I hope they can step back and take a break. SarahStierch (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope he will be blocked at some point, and the behavior stops.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be not a bad idea to inform him of this thread though.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the ping about that. I really hope things can calm down and they will perhaps reconsider contributing positively - they have made some great contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Has not risen to the level of incivility. I'm not surprised at his response to your post, you specifically targeted him in it. You escalated things when you accused him of bullying. Frankly, he is obviously heated but not being inappropriate. And Ymblanter's "Very typical and long-time behavior" comments arn't helpful.--v/r - TP 20:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:TParis! Glad you're participating. Thanks! No where did I state or accuse that the user was bullying anyone (thought I admit, I do fear it happening on either side of the "oppose/support" coin!). I was worried that people could be bullied or bit, which is what I was referring too. I think it's important that administrators keep their eyes on things and make sure people are civil, sadly, HiLo48 was not one of those folks - he seems to think a lot of people are "attacking," him - when many other users are being called "Prudes" "Conservative Christians" "American Christians" "Grammar Nazi's" and other things (not just by him, but he seems to be very filled with rage, and I feel bad about it). I also know that some people might take those as compliments, but, so far it seems people are having their feelings hurt (Prude is considered an offensive thing to call someone in America, at least). I can't protect everyone, but, I think respect is important in these discussions and clearly that is lacking with some folks. I hope people will look at this with a clear mind. I will let my fellow administrators decide the best course of action, and perhaps just merely mentioning it here will help calm the situation. Thank you, SarahStierch (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarah - being one of those "American Christians" (I think I'm quite liberal to be considered a prudish or conservative Christian), I see where you are coming from but I think it falls a bit short of your perception of it. And regarding you calling him a bully, it may not be what you intended but the way I read this, it comes off as "We need to cut out the calling people names like 'prude' or I'll report the bullying behavior." That's how I read it. It seems to me that you are calling HiLo48 a bully. Now, I'm not particularly fond of HiLo48 myself. I almost started an Arbcom case about his behavior on the Jesus has risen today DYK ANI thread. And I've seen him bashing Christians and violating the WMF non-discrimination policy just about every time his name has come up. But I just don't see it here.--v/r - TP 23:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And just a heads up, some more craziness ensuing, see summaries here. SarahStierch (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

""Grammar Nazi's". After that apostrophe the Grammar Gestapo may be knocking on your door any minute now. Since when is calling someone an "American Christian" a vile attack? In any case, as far as I can tell the comments are not taunts directed at individuals. He is objecting to what he thinks is prudishness, and the over-representation of American Christians, which he thinks creates systemic bias. Whether this is true of not, it's not what is normally meant by "personal attack". Paul B (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's used as a pejorative, it's an attack. See my essay WP:Politics as a pejorative for my thoughts on it.--v/r - TP 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the text says at all. And it refers to article content. Paul B (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to address the term "prude": I don't consider that a personal attack, and I'm an American who thinks our country is full of prudes. It can be used in away that is unflattering, but many people proudly self-identify as prudes. In spite of our overly narrow definition at Wikipedia, it encompasses more than just someone who is overly modest about sexuality, and common usage is of anyone who shuns anything taboo, morbid, graphic, anti-establishment or sexual. That is not the same as breaking Godwin's Law. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever! I never called anything a "vile attack". I just think it's immature behavior that needs to be curbed. Assuming anyone is anything is just plain uncool, and frankly, as a non-Christian, surely non-prude (I know most of you don't know me personally, but trust me, I'm anything but), I think name calling can go else where. But, I guess I'm wrong. All the more reason why I don't participate in discussions that often anymore - I'm not here to edit Wikipedia with people who act like immature kids, I'm here to write quality content and get more people involved in doing so, with people who are "mature" human beings (a joke here and there is awesome, but, name calling like 10 year olds, c'mon). And gods knows name calling isn't one of those ways for succeeding at the latter.. :) (or keeping those of us around who do the first!). Ah well. Perhaps I'm overreacting. Thanks everyone, I'll unwatch this and move along to more important things. Sorry if I wasted peoples time. SarahStierch (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia has lots of immature people, the idiots will let anyone edit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK OK OK I'm back... I was tipped off about this discussion. Sorry, but just because I'm a "sensitive" person and so are other people I know, clearly this is not the first time. But hey...whatever! SarahStierch (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about sensitivity?--v/r - TP 00:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur. Although I'm on the other side of the POTD debate, I do find HiLo's manner to be confrontational, excessively personal, and antagonistic. I also do think that 'prude' can often be intended as a slur. Maybe some people do self-identify as such, but that's a form of reclamation, and that doesn't make it OK to fling at someone else as an epithet. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sure it was meant as a slur, but I'm not going to block over it. Sarah is an admin, we are pretty much expected to deal with minor incivility against ourselves, even taking a rare personal attack. I didn't get this upset when someone told me to "Go fuck yourself" the other day. I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but this is below the threshold I would expect an admin to be taking to ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo is fighting hard here, and being tough on opponents, and a bit unfair sometimes in my opinion. And I'm on the receiving end of some of it, and I have frowned once or twice. I used the word "combative" to describe the editor's conduct. But personally, I don't think that the editor's conduct has yet been so offensive that any administrative action is called for. Let's move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It is ok to be told fuck off once, by an editor who is clearly overreacting. The problem with HiLo is that he is doing it all the time, just below the threshold behind which you expect him to be blocked. He is taken to ANI on a regular basis, but since he is below the threshold, the majority would always say that there is nothing serious. In my case, about three month ago, he was incivil, I have taken him to ANI, the the majority told me that it is my problem and not Hilo's, that I have a very poor command of English and this is why I do not understand what is going on, and other similarly pleasant things. And HiLo mentioned on a couple of occasions that he is proud being incivil with me (now he calls this generically "rough administrators"). Well, after a week he was called names by someone and immediately run to report this to ANI - he just has very different standards for his own behaviour and for what he expects from the others. Having said that, I believe unless he screws up badly the problem is not solvable at ANI. I am waiting for RFC/U, not having time to do it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was going to avoid posting in this pointless thread, but Ymblanter is displaying the worst kind of behaviour here. He hates me because I embarrassed him back in the early days of the Crimea dramas. He accused me of POV pushing on that topic, and was roundly condemned and shown to be lying, be me and a number of other editors. He is a POV pusher who desperately wants me out of his way. He is throwing mud here safe in the knowledge that he will almost certainly get away with it. Other Administrators never show the courage to do something effective about badly behaved Admins. All his comments here are not about the thread in question, but are just attacks on me, with an obvious goal. HE is the only one to use the expression "fuck off" in this thread or the one under discussion. I certainly didn't, yet he seems to be trying to imply that I did. I would dearly love to see a boomerang here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was never shown to be lying. You are deliberately lying now. I am criticizing you because of your poor behavior, and you attack me because of your phantasies. I am not a POV pusher, I have no POV to push.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't you remember accusing me of bringing Putin into the discussion, and then having it shown by me and others that it was YOU who mentioned him first, in very negative tones? That's lying, twice now, and POV pushing, and you were caught out by me and others. You are a POV pushing, lying Admin, and want me out of your way. I was going to let all that pass, because Admins are such a protected species here, but your appalling attacks on me here have made me change my mind. HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, by distorting and misrepresenting the facts and calling names you just perfectly illustrate the topic of this thread. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• As I've said in a previous thread about this user, my concern is that there is a particular group of editors with whom he appears to be unable to assume good faith and who, in his opinion, shouldn't be part of Wikipedia. I'm not sure how this diff could be any more explicit on this point - "Then such people are conservatives who we don't want at Wikipedia." GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already expressed my concerns about HiLo's conduct at the last ANI, so I won't rehash it here. My point is that no singular instance is ripe for a block. I would tell HiLo (again) that he needs to tone it back, as the pattern is becoming more and more in focus, and a pattern is actionable, if for no other reason that it is disruptive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I've stayed out of the older discussions (at least from my recollection) but I looked at HiLo48's comments over there and I'm seeing some serious WP:SOAPBOX behavior. Enough that I find it alarming. Nobody should ever say that "liberals" or "conservatives" are not wanted on Wikipedia. That sort of attitude is completely antithetical to the fundamental way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. I'm concerned that HiLo48's point of view is too strong to be a constructive participant at this project. -- Atama頭 16:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Your misrepresentation of my comments caertainly makes you a non-constructive participant at this project. I have never said that "conservatives" are not wanted on Wikipedia. Misrepresentation is a destructive form of debate. I wasn't going to post here. Ymblanter's lies about me forced my hand. I aim to not post here again. But I will watch to see if any Admin has the courage to tackle unacceptable behaviour from other Admins. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
        • How dare someone misrepresent you like that. It must have been someone else editing for you who said "such people are conservatives who we don't want at Wikipedia. Perhaps like several of the above posters, who are clearly seeking censorship, and pretending it's something else. Please go to Conservapedia" [183]. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 21:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
          • The words are different, and have a different and more complex meaning than you seem to have read into them. I must try harder to simplify my language. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't see how it would be possible to read any meaning other than the one stated above into the comment you made. G S Palmer (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
              • It could be read as 'the type of conservative we dont want here' given the context. Which going by Hilo's past edits is entirely possible. However its far from the best way to phrase the sentence. However since the original issue seems to have been dealt with, I suggest people back away from each other. If you have an issue with Hilo's conduct, RFC/U is probably a better place as the examples that spawned this thread hardly rise to personal attacks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
                • Based on what our policy says, it does rise to the level of a personal attack. "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors." Political epithets directed against a group of contributors is a pretty valid description of what HiLo48 said in the prior discussion. If attacking people for being "conservative" should be dismissed as a personal attack, then we need to change our policy as written. I'm not actually advocating administrative action at this point (as an admin I would probably just implement it) but I do think it should be remarked on. I'm also concerned that HiLo48 is simply pretending to not have said what they said, per above, claiming that direct quotes are "misrepresentations". If we are misinterpreting what HiLo48 meant, then HiLo48 should clarify. But based on what can be read on HiLo48's user page I don't think we are misinterpreting. -- Atama頭 23:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • I am what Americans would call a liberal. I don't use that description for myself because the more conservative of Australia's two major political parties is the Liberal Party. (Go figure.) However, I make a massive effort to keep my biases out of my editing. While editing here during both the most recent Australian federal election and the most recent US presidential election I was accused by supporters of both sides of pushing the POV of the other, because I removed and opposed the POV edits of everybody. I take great pride in that. My problem with issues like the thread that led to this nonsense is never simply with religious people, or conservative people, or extreme left wing radicals. It's with editors with any ideology who cannot keep that ideology out of their editing. Biased editors aren't a problem. We are all biased. It's those who don't even recognise their own biases, and those who want to impose their biases here, that are the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Is restricted editor TJ Spyke violating his restrictions?

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

---

User:TJ Spyke and I are in need of some clarification regarding his editing restrictions. For failure to abide by WP:NOTBROKEN despite literally dozens of warnings and dozens of blocks, it was finally decided last May that he needed to be blocked indefinitely. For the curious, a good summary of his WP:NOTBROKEN violations is documented here. He also has an equally lengthy rap sheet and a prior indef block for pro-wrestling-related WP:EDITWAR violations. His appallingly-long block log is here.

Anyway, after several months he was unbanned on April 1 after agreeing to abide by the conditions set forth at WP:RESTRICT. Specifically: "TJ Spyke is banned from changing the target of any wikilink for a year, will observe a 1 revert rule for six months, and can be placed under a topic ban by any administrator for one year."

Since being unblocked he's spent the majority of his time making changes to a vanity page on professional wrestling stats that he's maintained for years in userspace, but he also does make occasional edits in mainspace and some of them (e.g. this and this) seem to me to violate his editing restrictions. These two edits prompted me to give him yet another warning (seen here), and I told him that if I saw any further violations I'd seek guidance here.

Sadly my warning seems to have mainly impacted his rate of editing and not his avoidance of the issues that landed him his restrictions in the first place. So a few weeks later, after making this edit, he wrote to me to ask whether he was again in violation of his restrictions. I told him that it looked like a violation to me and I advised him to seek clarification from User:Yunshui, the unblocking admin. TJ Spyke decided not to seek any further advice and resumed his slow-paced userspace-centric editing. This morning I noticed this edit and I have to say it strikes me as a clear example of "changing the target of any wikilink for a year" - a violation of the restrictions.

Can TJ Spyke and I get some clarification on whether these are indeed violations? It would be helpful to know if TJ Spyke is continuing to openly flout community rules or if he's acting within the bounds of his restrictions. Thanks for any light that can be shed on this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether the edits themselves are justified or not, all of these are very clear violations of the editing restrictions he agreed to (the Halloween Havoc diff in particular is exactly the sort of edit he was previously blocked for. I am therefore reinstating an idefinite block on his account. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Impersonating Cluebot NG, Vandalism, Possible sockpuppetry

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

---

ClueBot GN (talk · contribs) appears to be impersonating ClueBot NG. An edit summary copy and pasted from one of ClueBot's as seen in this diff clearly lacks the markup that ClueBot has. It is also suspected that this user is a sockpuppet of Karmelisgood (talk · contribs), I1217287134 (talk · contribs) and 78.16.66.61l (talk · contribs) (which is also a misleading name) because of the similarity of their disruptive edits to the Megan and Liz page by adding this poorly photoshopped NSFW image of one of the cast members nude (which is a scaled down version of this non-free NSFW image also up for deletion). Dsprc (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a job for the SPI department. Doc talk 04:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Comics and Gaming Magazine

User:Bfrye26 is adding review snippets from the website Comics and Gaming Magazine to various articles, along with expanding the website's article. The user appears to be the owner of this website. The site does not appear to be reliable or notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) (talk)

• I am not the owner of the site. I have been reading the magazine for a while now as It is sold at stores in Canada. I noticed the information listed was old and outdated so wanted to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfrye26 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not the place for this, but it is likely that the text added is a copyright violation or a COI by process of the "we" in this edit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

He's not the only one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mario_Golf:_World_Tour&curid=38518498&diff=608852129&oldid=608850161 Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've reverted Bfrye26's edits on Comics and Gaming Magazine since they added tons of copyrighted material to the article (from the mag website), plus linkspam/refspam. Bfrye26 has also been given a copyvio-warning. Thomas.W ^talk 16:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• I was about to go to WP:VG/S about this on reliability grounds before looking at the spammish angle of it. Guess I wasn't the only one to notice these additions. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The user is still engaged in wide spread additions of this site to VG review templates. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• User:Cody Orme appears to have confirmed his identify as the Cody Orme writing for CGMagazine in this [184] edit. -- ferret (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Might be ripe for a WP:REALNAME block; I don't see that as a particularly good confirmation of identity anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Executive Editor of the website is listed as Brendan Frye, even if he does not own the site. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Another user has reverted Bfrye26's additions: [185]. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I cleaned most of them up. Atama has blocked Bfrye26. I've advised Cody Orme he should visit this discussion several times. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Seems the block of Brendan resulted in Cody getting hit with an autoblock. It's fun how these things work out sometimes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• The main article needs a good anti-spam enema, phrases like "CGM is about more than just discussing new comics and games and their entertainment value, although we also do that."--the 'we' gives it away. Ultimately it may not be notable enough for an article at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Those sorts of tone issues are also red flags in my mind for potential copyvios. Not a guaranteed hit, but it's usually worth checking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And no one finds it odd that both Bfrye26 and Cody Orme are using the same style to reply to other editors on their respective talk pages? 24.149.117.220 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:AngBent persistent nationalist edit warring on Balkans topics.

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

---

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

As can be seen from his block log, Angbent has been regularly blocked for edit warring on Balklans related topics. He seems to hold rather strong nationalist views and is removing references to Bulgarian or Turkish influences on Greece. He has regularly embarked on sprees of removing sourced material. He has returned after a spell to continue in the same vein. Diffs [186], [187], [188], [189], [190].

Some typical edit summaries:

rv nationalist-fascist pov
this is a greek city, i will report anyone contnuing the edit war
it never had bulgarian population so we don't care
rv nationalist propaganda, this is an encyclopedia
it never has had significant foreign population
this is a greek city
distorted source

AngBent no longer makes any pretence of engaging in talk, he simply revert wars a number of editors until he's blocked. Sits out the block and then returns on another edit warring spree. As can be seen in this edit [191] when he did use the talk page it was unproductive he dismissed sources as a biased book from decades ago, as can be seen from the response [192] all of the sources used are reliable secondary academic sources, mainly produced by authors of neutral ethnic origin.

I do not think this is an editor here to improve the encyclopedia but rather to pursue a nationalist agenda incompatible with our policy of a NPOV and is edit warring on pages subject to arbcom restrictions. WCM_email 09:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Indeffed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Bullying editors on the talk page

Although I have resigned myself to not participating in Wikipedia, I can't help but feel that editor conduct leading up to this point has been inappropriate. If a more senior editor could take the time to review the recent activity on the '9/11 conspiracy theories' talk page, I would consider it in the best interest of the site.

The objections I expressed were limited to the context and content of one sentence. I also suggested that a tag be added. Several editors immediately began quoting policies in an effort to dismiss my concerns. No one endeavored to address my criticisms or engage in a dialogue. Instead, my edits to the talk page were deleted. Finally, I was threatened with banishment, despite the fact that I have not registered or edited any articles.

After the threat of banishment I attempted to respond to the threatening editor on his talk page. He quickly deleted my response without providing his own. His characterization of my edits to the talk page seemed as if he had not actually read them. I found it discouraging that he should delete edits to a talk page without actually examining them.

Of course the topic of 9/11 is controversial and I recognize this. It is for this reason that I have limited my criticisms to the use and context of that specific passage, and not the larger issue. I do not expect that everyone should be able to agree on any given issue. However, I did harbor the thought that (in so much as it is humanly possible) the use of logic in constructing a sentence can be examined from an objective standpoint.

Again, I have no intentions of editing Wikipedia articles, nor will I consider registering. There is no danger of me offering (further) criticisms on that talk page. That issue is closed for me. However, I do hope that Wikipedia and my own use of it can improve from this point forward. Thank you for your consideration and any guidance you may offer.

Please see the edit histories for the following pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#.3F.27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VQuakr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.0.244 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

NON-ADMIN: I'm sorry you feel you were mistreated. At face value it looks like you got embroiled in a content dispute in which consensus was against your suggestions. There are dispute resolution options that might have been worth pursuing (and maybe still are depending on how invested you are).

I see your contributions being collapsed, not deleted. I also don't see any threats of banishments. Can you provide diffs showing where you were threatened with banishment or your comments were deleted? I'm inclined to suspect you might have been threatened with a WP:BLOCK, but that's not the same as a WP:BAN...though I recognize that the terms sound somewhat interchangeable on the face of it.

Anyway, I hope this will be worked out to your satisfaction, but I hope you'll bear in mind that content changes generally are done by WP:CONSENSUS and while we may sympathize with your difficulties, we may also need persuasive arguments to support the underlying content issues. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

also non admin - I agree with the complainant. it is one thing to strongly disagree with other editor, it is quite another to delete their content from the talk page. WP regulations require that editors be 'welcoming' and 'respectful'. This does not appear to have been the cae, rather bullying appears to have occurred. When such bullying occurs clear messages need to be sent, though not necessarily banishment at first incident. Proving diffs becomes impossible with a highly aggressive individual due to the levels of reversion. Leopardtail (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is the IP I was using which shows the threat of ban/block: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:36.252.112.118 Here is where my comments were deleted from the talk page the first time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=608652873&oldid=608649704 The second time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=608781328&oldid=608777689

Concerning the need for a consensus, it seems perfectly acceptable. It was the dismissive quotations without engagement, threats of blocks, and deletions which brought me here. I do not expect everyone to be able to agree on any given issue. However, my expectation was that the disagreement could be expressed through dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.0.244 (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the diffs. I think I'm going to have to leave it to the admins to look at, but the additional information should be helpful in any case. I'm glad you understand the consensus part of the situation in any case.

I will say regarding the block (not ban) warning that that's a standard template message and you'd be best off considering it an advisory to reconsider your behavior...and not necessarily a well-founded one...rather than any sort of threat. Anyone can use one of those templates at any time; the intention behind issuing them (in good faith instances at least) is to try to get editors to take more constructive approaches to situations before admins feel they're left with no option but to block to prevent disruption. In other words, as intimidating as the messages can be, they're really meant to help editors by (strongly) encouraging them to take a look at their behavior and offering more constructive options. Anyway, best of luck. I'll chime in again if I think I have anything useful to say, but as I said, probably best if the admins review matters at this point. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree consensus is impossible with some individuals and there will always be a content dispute involved in any bullying. This form of behaviour on WP is becoming all too common and one cannot simply brush it off as a content dispute. Leopardtail (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look through the edits. I don't think talk page comments should generally be removed unless they are archived or contain libellous content or personal abuse. If you don't like something - ignore it!

However, the bottom line is 9/11 is, as you might expect, a controversial topic, especially where conspiracy theories are involved. Therefore I would strongly recommend you (and, indeed, anyone) avoid editing it unless you are extremely well versed in Wikipedia policies, otherwise you'll simply run into trouble as you have here, as consensus of opinion is hard to sway unless you are very effective in communicating. It's best to just accept that's the way it is and find a different topic to edit. Incidentally, WP:DEADHORSE is an essay, not a policy or guideline, although the overall message of "when a debate has ended, don't keep it going" is sound. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Misleading edits

I left a detailed message here for User talk:Calvingabor on May 15, 2014, regarding two articles they had edited. The editor added information about church membership by various religions. I painstakingly examined the source of the data, and the editor added data that was incorrect and misleading. In some cases, significant religions were excluded. In other cases, the membership of particular religions was inflated. This editor has not responded, and has continued editing. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock request, again, for Santiago, Chile, IPs

Last February, Tbhotch started a discussion about IPs from Santiago, Chile: "Request for rangeblock of 190.96.32.0/20". The result of the discussion was a /18 rangeblock set in place by Master of Puppets. Did that block expire? If so, can it be reinstated?

Recent activity by 190.96.32.18, 190.96.33.71, 190.96.34.113 and 190.96.41.113 suggests that the vandal has returned to his usual disruption of changing the year, along with other edits. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mercedes-Benz Today

Mercedes-Benz Today (talk · contribs) is a newly created account and the user page shows it to be an administrator, which clearly is not the case. There are a number of page protection moves done by this editor, also. Please review and educate as necessary. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The userpage was a total fraud, a copy of User:Mark Arsten's userpage. I've blocked this one for shameless and disruptive vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The editing pattern makes me wonder if this was a sock of Myuser89 (talk · contribs). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And User:Phongluu12 also set up a user page to impersonate an admin. Bahooka (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Whose recreation of "BMW M3 And M4" confirms that they (and MBT) are Myuser89. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Humiliation

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

---

I have been blocked by Bishonen for three-revert rule on 13th of May 2014. I do accept that I breached 3RR. However, Administrator should have considered the nature of my intention for engaging in 3RR.

I was patrolled on recent changes and I saw particular editor’s suspicious edits, and I engaged to guide/stop him/her. You can see here and here in user’s contribution. I understood that I was breached 3RR, and I reported here.

Here are some evidences of my suspicion against a user and nature of my intesion:

1. User removed my warning messages from his/her talk page. (See here)
2. User exposed him/her as sock puppet of user, which was blocked. (See here.)
3. After my report at Administrators' noticeboard, another user reported against an IP, which might have used by same user. (See here.)
4. Page is restored by another user as per my intention. (See here and here)

I am a good-faith editor an am not a habitual edit warrior. See my contribution here and as well as in global contribution. I contribute as a patroller (2) and sysop (1) in 3 wiki projects. I have identity and I cannot ignore the user ID and jump to another. My contribution is lasting for nearly 2.5 years. Therefore, it is clear that I am not a habitual edit warrior. I am aware of use of sysop tool and I don’t use as bot. Sysop should analyze the contextual awareness. There is an example in Edit warring and it says Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake. In my case, sysop was curious on 3RR, and not a contextual analyst. It gave me humiliation as I have been marked as Blocked User, and I am wondering in such reactions when I involve in patrolling & act against vandalism. How can I recover form black mark as Blocked User? --Anton^Talk 16:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't. Take it like a man. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you feel humiliated by my block, AntanO. You reported the other user on WP:AN3RR, and I acted on your report.[193] The other user may indeed have been more blameworthy, but if you go to the 3RR noticeboard when you're yourself equally guilty on the score of edit warring… well, that's risky. I couldn't block the other person and not you, it doesn't work like that, so I gave you a short block each (12 hours). It might have been better to block neither of you. I'm sorry. Please don't feel bad, it's not really a black mark to have a short edit warring block in your block log; it's more something that shows you've been to the wars. Many users have blocks in their Wikipedia history, and I hope later you'll feel able to wear yours with pride, as I do my own block from May 2009 (and note who placed that one.[194] ). Bishonen | talk 16:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

There are some very valuable and prolific editors and admins who have a block or two on their block logs which can not be altered or erased. It is not a fatal situation. Just remember that there is no right side in an edit war. There is no reason to feel humiliation, just take it as a learning experience.

You aren't asking for admin action so I expect this complaint to be closed unless other users want to offer you some advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

They're right: the're more (me too); take it like a man. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• A single block is not the end of a potentially stellar Wikicareer. It's not even a roadblock. It's hardly a blip. Barely a pimple on a teenager's elbow. Now, on the other hand, drawing excessive attention to it - like coming to ANI - just prolongs the pain and puts your name at the back of everbody's head the panda ₯’ 19:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Tournament results on syndicated shows

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

---

I was looking to see the results of game one of the JEOPARDY! Battle of the Decades, as due to weather related issues, my satellite TV went out. When I got to the article (at about 3:30pm EDT), it showed not only the results for game one, but also the results for game two. I realize that since JEOPARDY! is syndicated, it does not air at the same time in all markets. Some can watch it in the afternoon, in my market (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre), it comes on at 7:30pm local time. My suggestion for tournaments on syndicated shows would be that final results not be added until the day following the conclusion of the tournament so that people who may have missed the first half (and just want to know those results) don't find out who wins the whole thing before it airs in their market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.158.134 (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers. Once the results are reliably known—which may include when it first airs in any market—the results can be added to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

[After an Edit conflict]: I think you will find that Wikipedia:Spoiler tells you why your request won't be granted. The other issue is, how long should Wikipedia wait? I'm sure this stuff eventually arrives in many other parts of the world. We cannot wait until everyone who will possibly ever see it has done so before we list the result. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Or you should be mature enough not to go onto the page of a programme you explicitly don't want spoiled, perhaps? doktorb _words^deeds 03:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from Brian Josephson (again)

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

---

Refers to article content as libelous material again, says "The law is the law", and cites a law school's site.

He's going to (again) say that it's not a threat, but will some admin please tell him that dancing on the line isn't acceptable either? It's nothing but pseudo-legal bullying meant to game the system. IMO, he needs to be topic-banned. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup. See [195] and [196]. If explicit references to 'libel' and links to an article entitled 'General Principles of Defamation 1' don't come within the scope of WP:NLT policy, then I don't know what would. It seems to me that Prof Josephson is being intentionally provocative here, despite the previous block, and accordingly I suggest that the best course of action is that he be topic banned from all material concerning Russell Targ. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those edits (and others that can be easily found) show continued tendentious behavior caused by an unmitigated WP:COI in the matter. Honestly, I'd say he should be topic-banned from anything connected to remote viewing, if not pseudoscience, but that seems to be what he's here for. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither of Josephson's comments there contain the element of threat that NLT would require. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NLT: "if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Seems clear enough to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Plus, the entire basis for his argument is "Wikipedia could be taken to court," which has been dismissed before, and at the very least is evidence of WP:TEND beyond a point where we can WP:AGF from his involvement in remote viewing related articles. At a minimum, he needs a topic-ban, if not a block for continually dancing on NLT's borders. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

More evidence of tendentious behavior (this, this, this), as well as a veiled personal attack on me. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And bear in mind, he's been blocked for this exact behavior before, using quasi-legal claims about libel to try and get his way in a discussion. He was unblocked on the assumption that he wouldn't do that again. At any rate, 'The "I'm not the one making a legal threat, just giving advice" defence has never been a defence against using legal threats to intimidate other editors.' -- User:Wee Curry Monster Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No this is a fundamental misunderstanding of NLT. The important bit is "might interpret this as a threat to sue". Josephson can't sue - only the person allegedly defamed can do that. Josepson has no standing to make the threat. The point is it's only a credible threat if made by the person who has the power to carry it through. If this were not the case, it would never be possible for anyone to discuss whether WP:LIBEL (a policy) applied in any particular case.DeCausa (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What Josephson labels as "libel", is in fact well sourced, and either fair comment or truthful. Josephson is regularly in a minority of one when it comes to opinions on what constitutes good science. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

His behavior completely matches Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats: "if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." And "While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked."

He's repeated this behavior, and how is it anything but disruptive?

And he worked with Targ (the subject article), so he has a WP:COI and a personal stake in this matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite possibly, and maybe he can be sanctioned for that, I don't know. But it's not NLT. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Josephson asks what is done on Wikipedia if libelous content is found. That is quite different from saying, "I'm going to sue for libel." Just saying the words libel, libelous, slander or defamation don't constitute a threat in itself. They are not magic words. There actually has to be a threat for WP:NLT to apply, a stated intention to take action, not just the observation that content might be libelous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, especially given that both Targ and I have made it clear that we do not intend to undertake legal action. What could be clearer than that? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's tendentious bollocks, but it's not NLT. Maybe it's one more data point that spending too long with big lasers all day makes you go mad and cranky.

The basis of NLT is that one can act on-wiki (to policy) or off-wiki (we can't stop you), but not both. If you go off-wiki (in a sense for legalistic redress) then you can no longer take part in the on-wiki process.

NLT requires some notion of threat. This can be veiled or hinted at, but there has to be some suggestion that the person is stating an off-wiki action that they are contemplating (if they don't get their way otherwise). Discussing the state of libel law is no such thing, GF editors do that all the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In which case, can we just topic-ban Josephson for 'tendentious bollocks'? He knows full well what Wikipedia policy is, he knows full well that the article complies with Wikipedia policy (he is now claiming that describing Targ's research as pseudoscience is 'opinion' anyway - which makes the whole legal argument nonsensical), and he knows that we aren't going to change it on his say-so. This is a classic example of a SPA with a chronic case of deceased-equine-thrasher's-disease, and if it was anyone else, I suspect he'd have been blocked years ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

If Brian Josephson is so eager to educate about the law, he should send his resume to Harvard Law School and stop attempting to lecture on the article talk pages.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, the context is a direct response to a post by another editor, in fact the very editor who filed this report, who was also lecturing the general public about what libel is and is not [197]. Deltahedron (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of NLT is that where someone makes a threat to engage in legal action for things that took place on-wiki, they are not permitted to edit until that legal action is resolved. This, in my view, is more to prevent further damage to the community by allowing it to be, in essence, dragged into court by virtue of ongoing disputes. That is to say, by stating that you will take legal action, you are asserting that you will not participate in any on-wiki dispute resolution processes, which means that your behavior until that action is resolved will be largely incompatible with our community processes.

Now, discussing possible liability is something a bit different. Under WP:DOLT, we encourage editors to review content if there is a concern that someone may sue. In other words, we don't edit without regard to possible legal threats, and editors are definitely allowed to voice their concerns. However, WP:DOLT does not grant license to use perceived legal threats as a bludgeon in disputes, because the chilling effect that spreading such fear has on the community is very harmful. These sorts of threats are surely impermissible as incivility and pure disruption, even though they likely do not violate WP:NLT. I can't say what exactly occurred here, but I feel confident given the discussion above that it does not constitute a legal threat in the NLT sense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair analysis. There is a difference for the purposes of NLT between "if you put X in the article I'll sue you" and "if you put X in the article Mr Y could sue you". The former is a breach of NLT the latter is necessary to discuss WP:LIBEL but I grant can be done in a way which is tenedentious/disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Close this waste of time and move on. BLP and related policy quite expressly reference concepts like defamation, and we actually have a policy titled WP:LIBEL. Editors who complain about straightforward references to such policies in order to get editors with opposing views blocked are the ones who are trying hardest to chill discussion. One of the posters here is actually arguing that citing a legal reference to support an argument that some content violates our defamation-related policies is an NLT violation, even in response to a citation of a legal reference to support the opposite argument -- a Brobdingnagian thumb-on-the-scales position. When disputes like this reach the media, they give the impression that Wikipedia is run by adolescent howler monkeys. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• It should be noted that while that may be the letter of NLT, the intrepretation by the community has consistently been that comments that are obviously intended to cause a chilling effect are NLT violations and blockable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Clearly neither a LT nor a breach of our NLT policy. For goodness sake, he's quoting something called "WP:LIBEL", which talks about libel in one of our policies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes a good point which has a WP:BOOMERANG implication. Attempting to expand NLT in this artificial way could, in itself, have a chilling effect on discussion of legitimate BLP concerns and needs to nipped in the bud. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, there is sense among some that if one disagrees with the subject of a BLP any language is permissable on that BLP talk page to describe that person. This is clearly not how our BLP policy reads. Best to have an editor note that inappropriate use of the talk page. Doing so is not chilling to appropriate talk age discussion but a necessary point in process. Further, nor does anything Josephson says indicate that he will sue. There is no legal threat. As an aside: We are all responsible to note inappropriate uses of talk pages.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC))

• Josephson is quite right and has broken no policy. Frivolous complaint. --John (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Could someone please block...

Rock1994 (talk · contribs). He's a disruptive sock of the blocked editor Sudhir7777 [198] and is reverting in the same POV edits into Economy of Pakistan that Sudhir7777 made. I've put up the user at Sudhir's sockpuppet investigations page but that investigation might take forever. Until then, this user seems to be bent upon reinstating their POV into the article and I am not in the mood for edit warring. Please read the lead of Economy of Pakistan, he's literally destroying the article. Mar4d (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock for a week and extended the block on the master to two weeks. I've also semi-protected the target article for the duration of the block to disuade further socking as Sudhir777 has multiple ranges at their disppsal, limiting the usefulness of autoblocks.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Mar4d (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nerd in Texas

Could someone please take a look at Nerd in Texas (talk · contribs)? I happened to notice yesterday that he seemed to be creating some sort of hoax or joke article in his user space, so I dropped him a talk-page note asking what his purpose was. Rather than replying, he moved the sandbox to mainspace as the (now speedied) article Gravioli. He's made some good edits, but he's also made some bad ones, as well as some inexplicable ones, and has also created a few made-up types of pages. Some of his edits, along with this sandbox of his, show that he appears to have a perhaps less-than-healthy interest in the topic of hoaxing and vandalism on WP. I suspect that he's somebody's sock, since he created the account earlier this month and quickly started throwing around templates and abbreviations like one familiar with the place, and since and his speedied article Gigacity had also been created and speedied a couple of weeks before he showed up; but I don't know who created it that time, so I can't really file an SPI. Off to notify him of this thread now. Deor (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The original page Gigacity was created on 22 April by This is not my last name (talk · contribs) and wasn't the same. The content in that version was "A hypothetical city with a metro area population of at least 10 billion," as compared with Nerd in Texas' "A gigacity is a city even larger in scale than a megacity." However, it is striking that Nerd in Texas started editing on 30 April, the day after This is not my last name was indefinitely blocked, specifically for creating hoaxes.[199] That's so suggestive that it seems unnecessary to put you to the trouble of filing an SPI, Deor. I've indeffed Nerd in Texas per WP:DUCK. Thank you very much for catching this. Why aren't you an admin? Bishonen | talk 16:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

I have been wondering the same thing--I think I wondered this a few years ago already. "Deor" is a really cool name as well. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

In case one account or the other throws up an unblock the request, the socking is  Confirmed.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User scientwatcher is abusviely defending his single POV

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

---

This user is treating the Chronic_fatigue_syndrome and Chronic_fatigue_syndrome_treatment pages as his personal fiefdom. His easy access to articles give the distinct impression he is employed. His high level or activity seem inconsistent with both an Amateur editor with 'normal employment'. For these reason's I suspect he is a 'paid contributor' or other interested party and deliberately sabotaging the article.

His behaviour is so aggressive that other editors (me included) are being driven off the page - he is also stimulating the same behaviour by others (I suspect due to outright fury and frustration). I personally left this page for several weeks because I could not cope with his demeanour. There is a current example one page, however (due to ill health) I am unable to list all examples, they are too numerous and arduous to link.

Conduct vis-a-vis others

Today was the last straw, he posted the following material on the talk page:

It's your opinion that it's partisan. And if you look at Tekaphor's comments above, you'll see that the other reviews say pretty much the same thing. I would ask if you've been smoking crack, but I suspect you've just been spending too much time on patient forums. I think you need to get out more and read the actual science rather than listening to all the crap that is spouted on phoenixrising (I was having a look through it today, and the pseudoscientific claptrap on there would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad). It makes it very difficult for me to take anything you say seriously when you keep doing this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• He behaved rudely both on the Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome_treatment page and the Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome page (content now archived). He has also transferred this behaviour to my | own talk page (link to history) - search for 'poop study' or 'crap science'. When I demanded polite conduct on my page (and removed the rude comment) he transferred the rudeness to this one: Chronic_fatigue_syndrome

• When the talk history of the "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" and "Chronic Fatigue Synddrome Treatyement" pages are checked he appears to have exhibited unwelcoming or rude conduct with almost every user who disagreed with him thus driving several users driving editors off the page.
• He has made a groundless complaint here of 'rudeness' against one other user when (in the view of several) he is guilty of that behaviour.
• He is abusing WP rules to enforce his view of the content, making vague references to them often when the rules do not appear to have been broken. A recent example present on the talk page being references to WP:OR referring to a conclusion any educated person would form (as permitted). As a new-ish user I found this behaviour overwhelming and had to spend most than 1 month reading the regulations in order to deal with him.
• Other users on this same page manage to be cordial and polite.
• He has use the terms 'Quack' and 'Quackery' to describe doctors who disagree with his (rather inflexible) POV. Relating to Dr Titelbaum in the in the CFS page, and Dr MyHill in the CFS treatment page.

His overall conduct makes dispute resolution or compromise on content seem impossible, there are complaints on his home page covering multiple articles.

Conduct with Content

• He has repeatedly and aggressively reverted the content of other users as many as twice in one day while stopping short of the three revert rule.
• He has been using reversion or complete removal of content he disagrees with as his default modus operandi.
• He has aggressively promoted a single point of view in these pages that is one of at least eight medical disciplines involved in the disease.
• He has removed secondary references supporting statements that do not match his point of view, removed statemetns in their entirety rather than attempt balance (e.g. before & after. Providing a diff is not possible since his constant reversion makes most versions of the page incomparable. Please simply check history and view the number of reversions.
• When others make solid arguments for content he ignores them, makes rude comments or silly references to WP rules and reverts content.
• This has resulted in a page where I could make at least twenty comments regarding NPOV (a small subset there now).
• He is abusing Med-Ref rules to violate neutrality and balance and openly arguing that is correct practice. I can explain why they are especially problematic with this disease on request, however that discussion would be lengthy.
• There is also an issue with how he is insisting Systemic Reviews be used. E.g. deleting content relating to the 'validity' of studies unless the review state verbatim what the study concluded. The variable nature of ME means that very large numbers of measures have been studied with low repetition (more on this below). A systemic review simply could not do more than tabulate its findings for all but the single highly researched method (and the least useful / most harmful). Flexibility and common sense are required here.
• An alternative would be to use studies referenced by the International Consensus Criteria for ME, this has a wide range of expertise in its authorship and giving its study selection adequate peer review. Again he dismissed this compromise (archived talk history of CFS page).

Research Bias and semi-objective sources (required background)

The ideal sources would be systemic reviews of content. This presents particular problems due to complete lack of involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in CFS (inhibiting funding and repetition) and state bias (discussed in the main article and applying equally to USA / Australia). This meant state funding was biased towards psychological interventions as was funding for 'systemic reviews'. Two sources are [www.drmyhill.com] and [www.endfatigue.com] (neither would meet MedRef they are doctors websites).
I perosnally have direct contact with patients and direct experience of this subject, however the patients 'voice' can be seen at www.MeAssocation.co.uk (run by an Authority on the field - though not one I personally agree with) or more directly on [www.phoenixrising.com].

Any those websites would make it clear why Systemic Reviews are so problematic when compared with the extremely limited number of systemic reviews on PubMed. I could locate only four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Responses

Just based on reading this complaint, it seems that a very large amount of it deals with a content dispute or possible unintended bias caused by WP:MEDRS. That really falls far outside of what ANI can or should handle. Behavioral concerns, on the other hand, are well within the scope of things ANI is equipped to handle. This complaint really needs more diffs (but needs a lot less text). It is lengthy to the point of being impossible to address. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I stated in the complaint that he reverts to aggressively it's not possible to produce a before and after diff - you can't produce a diff between two reverted pages, hence I am unclear what you wish me to do. I would ask you to check his demeanour and language in the talk pages, this is the issue I wish the admin complaint to deal with. Please check the history and sheer number of reverts by this single individual. Leopardtail (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking quickly at these rather suggests there is an abundance of useful source material upon which to draw. If they didn't agree with the article's POV, we'd know what should change.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI does not handle content disputes. This appears to be a content dispute. Unless you can find links regarding actionable disruptive editing (gross incivility or personal attacks, persistent edit warring etc), this matter is outside of the scope of the noticeboard. I suggest following our dispute resolution process as it will result in a more effective solution. —Dark 06:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Shortened complaint with pure focus on behaviour

In response to comment please find shortened version with pure focus on behaviour.

1. This user is using inflammatory language such as suggestions other editors 'smoke crack' and the user to terms such as 'quack' and 'quackery'
2. He is reverting all edits by multiple editors breaking the spirit if not the letter of the three revert rule.
3. The extent of his reversion is so aggressive that one cannot produce diffs (one has to inspect the history log to see this) this alone speaks volumes.
4. It has come to my attention that he is fact (outing reverted) the author of a book on a psychosomatic approach to ME and is editing this article in a manner that two closely reflects that idea in that book - he is thus 'editing for personal again' by promoting the ideas in that book.
5. In response to the comment above regarding sources he is removing sources that don't suit him. Hence whether his material is soured or not his conduct is not acceptable.
6. If a person's behaviour with content is driving away other editors then it goes beyond a content dispute and becomes behavioural. Other editors manage to discuss content without rancour even in heated debate, and still find points of agreement. The problem is specific to this individual.

I wish the focus to be on the abusive and uncooperative pattern and behaviour. I take particular exception to his comment re 'smoking crack' and found it to be abusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 May 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't like the abusive language, but I'm puzzled by your accusation that he is treating these articles as a "personal fiefdom" and "abusively reverting". In the CFS article I count only 3 edits by Sciencewatcher out of the last 50. ON the Treatment article I count 7 out of the last 50. Sounds like a content dispute to me, and the apparent hyperbole in the complaint makes me wonder how seriously to take any of this. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

1. One first discludes trivial abusive material that is properly removed and sticks to real solid content. Most of the successful edits on this page belong to SC despite lack of consensus - this is equally true on the main page. Most of them are also far larger often entire sections and more polar in their view.
2. Most of the questionable reversion is also by him. This is the reason for my view. It is through prevention of successful edits by others that abusiveness is occurring. One cannot make the most minor edit to this page without reversion - if he is the majority successful contributor due to others showing more respect, then it matters little how many edits he makes.. He is achieving dominance through proper reversion.
3. In terms of numbers of edits the many by Ceyocky are invisible technical changes to markers, Tecs is merely moving of content, nothing added or changed. The various IP address edits are vandalism subsequently and properly reverted. The two edits by me not reverted are insertions of conflict tags (I tend to forget to sign and have to re-edit to fix thus doubling history doing nothing in order to stay within rules). Checking with diffs (which I have now done) you will find no content but those tags.
4. If you check his book on Amazon that issues becomes far more striking. Leopardtail (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what language is abusive. The term 'smoking crack' is used to mean someone has posted something ridiculous (as leopardtail did). Now struck out. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your professional interest in the content is a conflict of interest in my view hence relevant to the discussion - it made immediate sense of your behaviour. The current supports the content of you book far too closely and for me raised serious questions when I compared content. This was my reason for its inclusion.

I view your own content with a similar respect to the way you view mine, however I do not sue such language and do try to remove it wholesale despite that opinion. I certainly have not expressed my view of your intelligence. The fact you defend this persistently abusive language is why I needed to complain - would rather spend time producing a balanced article. WP is quiet clear that editors should treat each other with respect whatever their views. The user of 'Quack' and 'Quarkery' in relation to content you disagree with is also abusive. Leopardtail (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There need to be diffs here. If diffs cannot demonstrate that what's going on is abuse, then there's a substantial likelihood that what's happening is not abusive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Leopardtail: "The extent of his reversion is so aggressive that one cannot produce diffs."

Why not?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the boxes were not selctable to choose specific versions needed. I have since worked out how to do it - previously I was not seeing two full columns of radio buttons to choose the specific versions needed. I agree with the comment below however the general mood seems to be that this is a content dispute hence I would rather see whether we can manage to resolve this on the page. Thank you all for your time. --Leopardtail (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. There is no indication that this is anything other than a content dispute. Moreover, I see no problems with the content that sciencewatcher has added to these pages. This thread probably should be closed. I am One of Many (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Anlu Rodsou (composer)

While stub-sorting I came across this, created by @Yarjane:: it had a ref, to a Thai-language law thesis whose English summaries gave no indication that it would contain any ref to this composer, and I see that there have been multiple deleted entries at Anlu Rodsou (A7, G3), Anlu Rodisou (A1), Anlu Redsou, Anlu Rudsou, Anlu Radsou. Perhaps someone could have a look and see whether it's the same editor all the time, and offer them some advice? There's also a pretty incomprehensible talk page entry from a page curator (@Polyglot:), at User talk:Yarjane. PamD 08:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Via Google cache, Anlu Rodsou in this incarnation said "Anlu Rodsou is a secret militar base next do Manaus, Brazil." Then there's Anlu Rodsou (singer) cached where it said: "Anlu Rodsou was british rock band very important for the sadwave scenery on london after the punk." Then Anlu Redsou cache "Anlu Redsou was a pakistani songwriter and frontman from the Valhala Rock Band." (Ditto Anlu Rodisou cached and Anlu Rudsou cached) The references in all these appear spurious and with no relation to the subject. A hoaxer at work? Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Or possibly a somewhat bizarre attempt to raise the internet profile of this person. See also, [200]. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the logs, many of those other articles were created by Kimberluv (talk · contribs). Based on the number of throwaway accounts involved with the repeated creation of Anlu Rodsou, I would guess this is a sock farm. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Since a quick search indicates that this person is clearly not any of the things mentioned in any of the incarnations of the article, I've G3ed the current article and blocked Yarjane indefinitely as part of this likely hoax farm. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: here's the previous thread on this. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the incomprehensible comment on the talk page. I'm rather new at reviewing pages with page curation and I only got involved due to the enormous backlog (and because it's quite a cool tool, I wonder when it will become available in other WP language versions). I looked around with Google, found the Finnish version of the page and how it got deleted on all other language versions. I think a global block for this account is in order. Next time I'll see something like this happening, I'll probably press the button to nominate it for deletion. Maybe I was trying to be too nice and constructive... It's a bit tricky to find the right balance. --Polyglot (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Sladewakenz, Spadious, Madcum, Kimberluv, and Yarjane are all  Confirmed and blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing from a user with a history of it

YahwehSaves (talk · contribs) has a history of problematic edits quite some time now. The user has an extensive block log which I don't believe he has learned from. His recent edits have been problematic in many ways and has been noticed by many (please see this thread: [201]). At the Harry Kizirian GA article, the user has been making edits that are only in accordance to his personal observations and is not backed by any source (few diffs: [202][203][204][205]). He continues to remove sourced content in other articles with often times misleading and discreet edit-summaries to cover what he is doing ([206][207][208]). Yet, on the other hand, he has added unsourced content numerous times with discreet edit-summaries ([209][210][211]) He has yet resorted to the talk page for his edits and has yet to provide a source to back his claims even when told to do so many times ([212]. He is often willing to edit-war to get his way ([213][214][215][216][217]). I'm not too familiar with his history since I have encountered this user just recently. Perhaps EricSerge (talk · contribs), HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), Chris troutman (talk · contribs), Intothatdarkness (talk · contribs) can provide a better and more comprehensive review of it. You can see a general summary of it here. It's also good to take a look at this thread here. The concerns brought forth in this thread ultimately ended in a block for the user. It also appears that the user is engaging in the very same disruptive editing that got him into these blocks in the first place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

168-hour block imposed. Do something problematic, get blocked, and return to make productive edits: no problem. Do something problematic, get blocked, and return to do the same thing: you need a stronger reminder. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Shugden SPA replacing academic material with self-published Shugden blogs and websites

• Western Shugden Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peaceful5 is the most hyperspecific Shugden SPA so far. Over the years he kept inserting self-published Shugden blogs and websites at the Western Shugden Society page. Now, he just did a massive replacement of academic material with the same self-published Shugden blogs and websites that both Kt66 and myself previously cleaned up. Peaceful5's goal is to make the page an advertisement for the Western Shugden Society. And Peaceful5 is well aware of Wikipedia's policy of using self-published material. So he cannot plead ignorance. This is a willful and deliberate act. By the nature of his edits, he has a clear affiliation with the Western Shugden Society / International Shugden Community. Heicth (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I do notice that in your revert here, as well as removing what appear to be sources related to the Subject, you also removed a lot of text that is sourced to reliable sources (i.e. books published by reputable publishers, the BBC, etc, as well as an Infobox. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, you need to be careful to not blindly revert changes but to review them properly.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing Nigel did while I was skimming through one of the editor's big contributions to the article. May I add (and I want to say this is something I learned from DGG, maybe), that the best way to stave off some types of disruption is to improve an article, and right now the article is not in a very good state. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of academic experts, and Peaceful5's insertion of the following Shugden blogs and websites is not acceptable:

• dorjeshugdenblog.wordpress.com
• wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com
• internationalshugdencommunity.com
• wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org
• westernshugdensociety.org
• shugdensociety.info
• dorjeshugden.com
• Also see **here please**Heicth (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing image uploads by User:Rodolph

What started out as an attempt to potentially rescue a few images has seemingly developed into an informal deletion review, and whilst I am trying to apply common sense, I am starting to feel a little out of my depth

The relevant discussions on the uploader's talk page:

• User talk:Rodolph#Please could these deletions be reviewed?
• User_talk:Rodolph#Some_answers
• User_talk:Rodolph#In_response_to_new_informations

On my talk page :

User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#Requests_at_WP:REFUND

in addition to some additonal queries made on a per image basis.

The feedback and views of a wider group of administrators and contributors would be appreciated.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note on Rodolph's talk page which will hopefully start a fuller discussion. Nthep (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Smalljim

He/she has been bombarding my pages with untrue violations and flagging them for unnotability inspire of have two dozen plus credible media reports. Could you please intervene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vaibhav_Maloo_(2nd_nomination)

Why is he after this particular page only? for 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptonite1234 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You say "my pages": which pages are those? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is just a complaint that SmallJim has sent an article written by Kryptonite (under a different account) to AfD. SmallJim had previously AfD'd an article on the same subject, which closed as delete. An interesting occurrence: three brand new accounts showed up to !vote keep in this AfD in something like a 10 minute period. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What Mendaliv said; there is no issue here. I've opened an SPI on the latter point at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kryptonite1234. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And he didn't even notify me of this report despite the notice to do so being rather hard to ignore. All I got from him around that time was an admonition. I trust no-one else will object if I don't treat this as a serious complaint.  —SMALLJIM  09:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Kryptonite has admitted to canvassing/meatpuppetry at the SPI: diff. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD closed as delete, title salted. Still no action on the SPI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Insulting editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlstom&diff=608784610&oldid=607649292 " Suggest you visit your medic to inquire about Alzheimer's."

I'm not dealing with this. I do not come here and work for nothing to be treated like this by random people.Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since that comment. When it occurred, a warning against WP:NPA would be appropriate, and further such comments met with blocking the panda ₯’ 13:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This merits a NPA warning, and with all due respect, perhaps a recommendation to chill out to the complaining party. Sometimes IPs come across with some things that would be intolerably rude if said in real life. Such is anonymity. If you stay active on Wikipedia I guarantee you'll have worse things said to you. Again, I say this only with the best intentions; you shouldn't feel that you were wrong in complaining about this editor's statement, but your reaction seems a bit severe all things considered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless the editor has a history of personal attacks, it's impossible to prevent rude comments before they occur. They need to be reported after they occur which you've done, Prof.Haddock. Mendaliv is right, interaction online necessitates developing a thick skin and also the ability to not take abrasive comments by anonymous editors personally. Editors need to be held accountable but it's the internet, rudeness happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's all well and good stating that the comment was made 2 days ago, and in some way is therefore stale, but if you check Prof.Haddock's edit history you'll see that there was an editing gap between 11/05 and 17/05 - so he has apparently reported it as soon as he saw it, possibly over-enthusiastically, but promptly nevertheless. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's all very well for Haddock to complain about an insult (last I checked, Alzheimer's was a medical condition) but where is the notice to him that he erred? If you read his edit, he removed a paragraph and then either lied about, made specious claims about, or conveniently forgot about, his reasons. I stand by my statement as a way to gently prod him short of saying Haddock fabricated his rationale for his censorship. It's all there in black and white on the edit summary. Rather than pile on with misplaced sympathy, read the record. 69.60.247.229 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"Suggest you visit your medic to inquire about Alzheimer's" is not a "gentle prod", it's an aggressive insult. Comment on the article text, not the editor. You were playing the man, not the ball (IMO). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I did warn the IP much earlier today ... and any such future bullshit will indeed lead to a block. That's a pretty vile personal attack suggesting that some form of mental illness is present the panda ₯’ 23:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Alzheimer's is a disease, not a mental illness.--Auric talk 12:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

True, but it's a disease that affects the mind by causing generalized neuronal deterioration, which seems to have been 69.60.247.229's implication. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Persistent slander and personal attacks

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

---

Requesting comment admin action re the conduct of MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) and Atlantictire (talk · contribs) in this AfD talkpage and this AN thread, where practically every single of their hate-filled, vitriolic posts includes unsupported accusations of my being part of an antisemitic "group" or of knowingly having defended antisemitic text. Of course I had no way of knowing the sources in question were cherry picked by Potocnik from some antisemitic essay, and upon that being demonstrated, I immediately reversed my position completely amid repeated apologies. My own past conduct on the talk page was not exemplary, and will no doubt be cited here, but even after my sincere apologies and withdrawal the abuse continues unabated. I also do not think any gruff response I ever wrote can be compared to this sort of continuous torrent of hate speech.

I am reluctant to invite the literal crowd from the content dispute to inevitably arrive here opposing anything I say, but there's only so much abuse of this serious nature that anyone can take. In this latest thread, in addition to Markbernstein's standard fare, there's Atlantictire calling me a fanatic racist and suggesting I am mentally ill.

Atlantictire is a user blocked for previous personal attacks of this nature against me, during which time he created sock puppets to evade his block, and continued posting attacks on his talkpage, showing no remorse whatsoever up to this very point, maintaining that its my fault for frustrating him. Prior to his block he created a sock, Mazelov (talk · contribs), to "congratulate" me, and tell me to (quote) "get those Jew bastards!". Presumably as some kind of attempt at entrapment. He (a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer [218]) was blocked for repeatedly calling me a sock puppet, and you will find him doing the exact same thing in the linked discussions.

I was wrong. And I did, as it turned out, defend a compilation of sources that, though indisputably reliable as such, were taken from their use by a racist essay. It was a mistake I made, and many others who defended the article. MarkBernstein deliberately takes advantage of this to omit everyone's lack of knowledge as to the origin of the references, in order to repeatedly slander me (as well as implicitly everyone else who was ever opposed to deletion) as "defenders" of antisemitism and racism both. Atlantictire just likes to insult others on the project, and sees that as heroic. -- Director (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well. I can see there's some quite serious history here. Confining my analysis simply to the linked discussions, I believe the comments of MarkBernstein and Atlantictire are inappropriate and possibly defamatory. Having been part of clusterfuck AfDs along the lines of the Jews and Communism one that spawned this discussion, I know that things can really spin out of proportion fast. In light of that, I do not think blocking of any party is appropriate, because although blocks could issue, the important matter is resolving the AfD. Blocking will not repair the harm to the community caused by the comments, and though it will prevent further such comments from being made, I believe a stern final warning to all parties be made to stop indulging in personalities even if the accusation is defensible, non-defamatory criticism, or whatever, so the AfD can conclude with as little further disruption as possible. In the words of many a scolding grandmother: it takes two to tango. A trainwreck of this magnitude cannot be the result of one single party's misbehavior. If the participants cannot allow the AfD to conclude without further disruption, then blocks should be considered to protect its outcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I omitted to mention the AfD itself is not in question at this point. I myself changed my position to Delete, and the article has been blanked. The linked discussions have very little to do with the (inevitable) deletion of the article, esp. the AN thread, and the behavior at issue seems poised to continue on. -- Director (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Director says he is facing "unsupported accusations of my being part of an antisemitic "group" or of knowingly having defended antisemitic text". I really struggle to understand how anyone could have read that article, or even the title of it, and not have seen instantly that it was a pure piece of anti-Semitic propaganda. It was pointed out over and over and over on the talk page that there is no connection between Jews and Communism, what the article was talking about was people who might be described as of Jewish heritage in Marxist-Leninist movements in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 20th century, that is not the same as "Jews and Communism" globally and at all times and there was never any source given for making any connection between "Jews and Communism". Director says "Of course I had no way of knowing the sources in question were cherry picked by Potocnik from some antisemitic essay", well he ought to have known because I said over and over on the talk page that the stuff about Jews killing the Tsar was only found on extremist anti-Semitic websites, here I call it the "grossest anti-Semitic filth"[219], and he and Producer, as he then was, threatened to "report" me or get me "sanctioned". A little research on my part revealed, to no surprise on my part, that that quote as well as many others in the article indeed came from an extremist anti-Semitic website. I did know what I was talking about, they would not listen. It is hard for me to get my head round the fact that Director sincerely believes that he is not anti-Semitic, however I do think that is the case. Some people are very very angry about all this right now, they are going to vent about it, it would be very wrong to "sanction" people for expressing their anger at the moment. I am very angry myself, but not really at Director, more at admins who saw this article and the discussion about it on two long threads on this board and just ignored blatant anti-Semitic propaganda being promulgated on this site. My advice to Director is to step back for a few days, take a wiki break, if people are still calling you names in a week or two, then you can try to stop it, but now is not a good time.Smeat75 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I request forbearance while the AfD, which is important to the future and, perhaps, the survival of Wikipedia, proceeds. Beyond that, I stand on my record here: I have keynoted and chaired wikiSym, I have written wikis and nurtured them, and i have done my best, and more, for this project. I deserved better of you. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Smeat75 and throughout the whole time I read the discussions I felt and thought exactly as he described, word by word. I don't think anyone should be sanctioned by either being angry or thinking that Director is anti-semitic after all the heavy process everyone had to go through for something so simple and obvious to happen, which is the deletion of a blatant anti-semitic article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Charming missives from Director: [220] MarkBernstein (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Skipping the content issues, I think Smeat is absolutely right that the solution, given the acrimonious nature of the entire situation surrounding the AfD, is taking a few days to collect and reflect. Doing so is going to be infinitely better than diving headlong into trying to correct any place you've been wronged. Just as there is no deadline with respect to the encyclopedia, nobody's likely to successfully argue that because you waited until after the AfD to complain about incivil comments made towards you, that you slept on your rights and forfeited the right to make a complaint. And by the same token, I believe that the overall issue between these parties is just not ripe for administrator intervention. Once the dust settles on the AfD, then we should look into whether sanctions are merited for behavior in its midst. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is not the place for requesting comment on editors but for requesting action. But the place for discussion is the open AN thread. If you want to complain about comments made there, make the complaint there. Since the cause of the dispute is an article which will probably be deleted, it may be that the problem will disappear once that is done. TFD (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I supposed to now work to convince everyone I'm not a mentally deranged fanatical racist who's also an antisemite, based on someone saying so, in order that my being called such would be viewed as inappropriate?

I defended scholarly sources that were and are, of themselves, entirely reliable. Myself and a dozen others were fooled by that fact. But no, in order for me not be a free target for personal attacks, I should have been psychic, concluding that they must have been taken from the references of an antisemitic essay. Frankly I don't care what something looks like, I go by what I see in terms of evidence.

I said "comment", because I don't demand sanctions be necessarily taken. As long as the nonsense stops. -- Director (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Admin action

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

---

Requesting admin action against Atlantictire (talk · contribs) regarding his comments in this thread, and a review of of the conduct of MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) as elaborated above, also with a mind to the possibility of sanctions for repeated slander.

"Comment" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that I am requesting an admin review of the actions of the two users, and the imposition of sanctions if that is felt necessary. -- Director (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the AfD has closed, and the topic ban discussions have been closed as well. As such my concerns above regarding ripeness are themselves now moot. While I think Director would do well to avoid claiming there was slander (i.e., defamation) in the comments, so as to avoid concerns that he is making legal threats, I also believe that implying another editor is mentally ill is bad enough from a WP:NPA standpoint as to merit some sanction. That sanction, of course, should not be punitive, but preventative. I fear, however, that this specific complaint is not separable from the litany of complaints that have already been produced by the AfD participants. That is, it would likely be inappropriate to impose sanctions in a piecemeal fashion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is inappropriate to go about this piecemeal, or to propose punitive sanctions, but that's exactly what you've got over at AN. I am singled out in spite of both apologizing and wowing to stay away from the topic, and in spite of the whole mess being effectively over with the deletion of the article. What else am I to do? Prevention is all I'm after with this thread. I don't want an apology even, all I want is assurances that I won't have to read any more essays of manipulative character assassination. If the users aren't able to bring themselves to stop, then imo there obviously isn't much more than sanctions in terms of prevention. I'm not out for "revenge", but this is really getting out of hand there. -- Director (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Too angry. Give me 24 hours and I might be able to give you my account of what happened here. I only ask that you do a admin complaint board search for "Director" and "Direktor" to get a sense of who you're dealing with.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, I think your best course of action, if you want to continue to be a productive editor and collaborate with others, is to put as much distance between yourself and this article as possible. That means dropping these complaints and moving on. I'm not saying that harsh words weren't spoken, it's just that you are not totally blameless, you fought hard for that article and against editors who stated their objections to it. Bringing up complaints against other editors means rehashing your participation in this article which just prolongs this episode. The discussion at WP:AN has been closed, you didn't receive a topic ban so chalk this up as a learning experience and let this go. Hopefully, in the future, you will not be dismissive of other editors' concerns and there will not be a repeat of this experience for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to indef block Atlantictire outright. Uploading racist material, attacking others with satire and sarcasm, casting aspersions. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As for MarkBernstein, he's been heated but no more than Director himself. I don't think sanctions are necessary.--v/r - TP 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  His behavior has been particularly atrocious, but perhaps with the article gone, this will all subside and everyone can calm down. If he follows the users he had beefs with into other topics and venues in the days to come, then throw the book at em. Tarc (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  Fair enough.--v/r - TP 22:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  I've done a bit of thinking on this. I reiterate that my exposure to this incident has been limited to the very specific statements made at the AfD talk page that at least insinuate Director is mentally ill or harbors antisemitic beliefs. Nonetheless, I cannot for the life of me, under any set of facts short of Director himself openly stating that he is mentally ill and harbors antisemitic beliefs (and possibly even then), believe those statements are justifiable under WP:NPA. Whether sanctions are necessary and what those sanctions should be is likely beyond the scope of this discussion. Nonetheless, for the time being the offending parts of the AfD talk page should be redacted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  On second thought...I didn't notice stuff like the grave-dancing going on at the AfD talk page, as that is (usually) a rarely-used part of the deletion process. I think people will have a hard time keeping their Evidence sections under limit at a potential Arbcom. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Do I feel like making a tactical apology here? No. I do not. You’re going to need to block me or else Director, who suffered no consequences other than losing the Jews and Communism article he relentlessly defended for months, will forever complain about how I called him a racist and suffered no consequences.

Am I bitter and feeling hostile to Wikipedia right now? Oh yes. Are there editors, right now, more focused on the fact that I’m “being a rant” and "holding a grudge" than that it’s completely outrageous and horrifying that this article survived an AfD and a deletion review and, that probably the only reason Jews and Communism was able to be expunged from Wikipedia was because someone created a screenshot of the white supremacist site from which it came.

No one is innocent here, especially not editors like Tarc who defended the article with statements like this [221] about people playing the “victim card,” and especially not anyone who thinks sparing Director a topic ban is a “good faith” decision after his role in all of this.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think you can make hay out of a long-redacted-upon-request comment, then knock yourself out, sport. I'm fairly confident that most who look into what has transpired over the last week/month will see you as one of the most egregious agent provocateurs of this affair. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's calm down here, Tarc . There's no reason to call Atlantictire an Agent provocateur; in fact, nothing could be less plausible. An agent provocateur craftily entices someone into a rash act. Director hardly needs to be enticed, and Atlantictire over-the-top derogation could scarcely be less suited to such a task. Atlantictire's anger is palpable -- he highlights it himself -- but you have no particular cause to be angry or to fling accusations about. (And isn't it strange how so many defenders of Jews and Communism are so worried about agents and conspiracies? Why would that spring to mind? Oh wait...)

There is a reason to Atlantictire's angry rhyme. As I see it, Atlantictire is trying to force Wikipedia's admins onto the horn of a dilemma. Atlantictire is wrong on policy; he is breaking the rules. Director is simply in the wrong, defending a page about the international Jewish conspiracy behind Communism because he didn't know -- how could anyone have known? -- it was anti-semitic. The inclination of the admin closing the AfD was, I believe, to give both Director and Atlantictire a lot of WP:ROPE, to watch and wait. Atlantictire, I think, wants to force a settlement now. "Censure Atlantictire for bad manners," he says, "or ban Director for bad acts."

Unlike the proposals to delete the page, which should have been an easy call, this one is not easy. Wikipedia’s inclination to narrow legalism would be to act against Atlantictire, who is clearly violating and clearly says he intends to violate rules -- fairly minor and arcane rules, to be sure, but rules -- while leaving Director for another day. In this forum that might be a tempting resolution. But I expect Atlantictire is not thinking of this forum; if he alone is censured, a broader audience will see that Wikipedia acted against Atlantictire for being mean to someone who defended an anti-semitic page, but took no action against that defender. The optics of that are terrible for the project. Of course, punishing Atlantictire by depriving him of editing privileges might be satisfying -- especially to those who value their editing privileges highly -- but I suspect Atlantictire might be placing a lower value on them than would the average admin. (I have no knowledge of these matters beyond reading what the editors have written, and I may be misinterpreting Atlantictire's intent.)

I write this because I think it is an interesting problem Atlantictire has posed, and it would be sad if the project blundered here by not understanding the question it was being asked. I really have no immediate idea how the project should respond. As should be clear, none of this has anything at all to do with Director's risible claim above that I have slandered him. It seems to me that someone might have mention WP:NLT, but I gather no one takes this specific accusation very seriously. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And there you basically have it, folks. Imagine yourself being openly described as someone who should be abused and insulted as a matter of moral choice. Who quite deserves to be "outlawed" with regard to our "antiquated", "legalistic", basic norms of behavior.

It would be more appropriate to describe MarkBerstein as the agent provocateur, "craftily enticing" others into a reaction based on a quite "crafted" perspective, voiced in his pamphleteer-style, manipulative essays, such as the one directly above. Note how he says I am "in the wrong", as if I still argue against the article's deletion. I do not, and I argued for it: to still say that I "am" in the wrong, implies that I am still in favor of the article, i.e. that I am an antisemite. And admins should be ashamed of themselves to protect an antisemite from continuous, unrepentant abuse because of some antiquated "rules".

Thing is, folks, I really don't think I should have to take any more of this on account of MarkBernstein's warped personal perceptions, whether or not they be couched in these "moral appeals". Indeed, their repeated expression is a textbook personal attack in and of itself, all the more serious because of the terms in which it is framed: "The choice is yours, Wikipedia!", "Decide now!", "Are you Nazis?! then prove you're not!", etc. -- Director (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Since my advice has gone unheeded...I will offer some more. Your choices here are limited, Director.

• 1) Let this incident go and move on, continuing to be a productive editor
• 2) Fight fire with fire and, inevitably, find yourself blocked
• 3) Stop editing Wikipedia

Of course, I recommend #1 as the best step. But continuing to argue here is not helping your case and could result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, got your take the first time, no need to repeat yourself. If the community feels I should "inevitably" be sanctioned for something, then obviously I should be sanctioned. My goal here is to put a stop to this behavior. I don't want to be back here in three weeks when Atlantictire again calls me a psycho or an "antisemitic crank" or whatever. Remember this is already a repeat performance, these fellas openly claim they're not doing anything wrong, and that they should be allowed to continue. Its a little too much. -- Director (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The message this sends is that it is A-OK for Bernstein, Atlantictire, USChick, et al, to behave as nastily and as vilely (and by any amount diff-checking, they have) as humanly possible as long as they feel the end result is just. This is completely contrary to years' worth of Arbcom and such decisions, where in a dispute as entrenched as this, the behavior of ALL parties is up for judgement. If Director or Producer or whoever feels aggrieved by other editors, it is pretty unfair for you to chalk it up to just deserts, so, look into this editor's complaint in a fair and unbiased manner please, or step aside and let someone else do so. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this directed at me? After you said earlier in this conversation "perhaps with the article gone, this will all subside and everyone can calm down"? Your comments are remarkably inconsistent. No admin has stated here that sanctions are forthcoming. I was just giving some advice, take it or leave it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that these users who won't drop the stick, my statement yesterday was apparently overly-optimistic. Tarc (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe I have been either nasty or vile in this discussion, and throughout the AfD I have gone to some pains to avoid directly addressing, much less characterizing, other editors. On some occasions, where the discussion hinged on specific edits or specific claims, I did address those claims. I have said, and I continue to maintain, that Jews and Communism was correctly deleted, that the judgment of and the revulsion expressed by the such a large segment of the community was entirely appropriate, and that the failure of the community to reach that judgment more rapidly reflects a failure that merits regret, reflection and remedy. On considering the matter at leisure, I think you will conclude that with respect to me, at least, you are mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you wouldn't want the community to be "legalistic" in its approach? Our project must "choose" to go by the spirit of the policy, et caetera.. -- Director (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, during the extremely heated debates on the Jews and Communism talk page, during which I have to say that you were instrumental in turning up the temperature, on at least two occasions you threatened me with being "reported" because I had severely criticized the content of the article. You conflated such criticism of the content as being criticism of the people who wrote those words. Now if I do say so myself, my criticism of the content was fully justified. What wasn't justified were your comments. All those talk page debates, plus the archives, are now deleted, so it's impossible to cite diffs, but I am sure there are ways of bringing them back to life, so that, if necessary, your conduct in that page, your fierce defense of the article, is again brought back into play. What I'm saying is, your continuing to fight World War III, after the last atomic bomb has exploded, really serves no useful purpose. That is what you are doing, you obviously feel continued resentment at how you were treated. I think that a lot of people feel that they were badly treated too. I think it's best that you drop this. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to my original post all the way up there. -- Director (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw your original post, both here and in the one that was archived. Whichever way you slice it, this is a continuation of the "Jews and Communism Intergalactic Warfare." Look, people's feelings were bruised. Are you going to sit there and say you didn't hurt anybody's feelings? With all your defense, strenuous as it was? Come on. You're an honest guy. You know that while you stuck to this side of the rules, you were putting people's sensibilities through a meatgrinder by defending that article. You really were, and I think that when you read what Smeat had produced, when you experienced nausea, you understood or should have understood that. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, time to move on. The conduct of certain users in that sorry affair, as noted by Tarc above, was attrocious. However, unlike Tarc, I don't think that there is any message that that was A-OK: that sort of thing gets logged in the collective WP memory. The continued histrionics by some of that group does you no damage. Sit back. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Fellas, I brought this up for our admins to review the conduct in question, and determine whether sanctions are justified in order to prevent further incidents. I'm not sure whether Mendaliv and TP intended to bring this matter to a close, if so, I certainly don't intend to press the issue unduly - but I can't be expected not to reply to comments that try and make us think allowing abuse in open defiance of our policies is some kind of "moral choice", and for the whole project no less. That is just appalling stuff. I am not necessarily pushing again for sanctions, but responding to yet another attack.

So in short, if we're done, we're done. It was not my intention to press on with demands for sanctions beyond receiving the requested input. I just hope we are indeed "done", call me crazy (or better yet don't :)), but I'm picking up a lot of hate here. So I will again say I feel terrible for my serious error in judgement, one which I will not repeat, but also that I will report further abuse. -- Director (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll just say this much: (beyond what I've stated above) I haven't looked at the whole dispute, the AfD, or what spawned it. I don't know who if anybody was in the wrong. But as DeCausa says, people remember these things, and have a strange ability to see when an editor is full of it. While this thread may not have turned out how you wanted, and the topic ban thread may not have turned out how they wanted, editors who are problematic tend to wind up back on ANI before long. And the next time the waters might not be muddied so easily. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That would definitely describe Director/Direktor, whose name crops up in over 150 ANI disputes, dating back to 2008, one of which resulted in a 6 month topic ban from Balkan-related articles.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And just because I like data, here's some on the number of times the yous and theys in this discussion have been mentioned in/participated in ANI disputes:

• Tarc: 300+
• Direktor: 150+
• Coretheapple: 15
• MarkBernstein: 9
• Atlantictire: 5 (percentage relating to Jews and Communism and involving Director/Direktor = 100%)--Atlantictire (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Atlantictire, if you're the one in the right, you're only making yourself look bad by spiking the ball here. And if you're in the wrong, you're only drawing attention to yourself and your conduct. Come on, man. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. I'm not trying to get into an argument but I understood you to say that bad apples show a pattern of behavior. Well, I've been here since 2010 and this is a first for me.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

My point was this: If Director has a pattern, then let the pattern destroy him. Likewise, if you have a pattern, it will destroy you. But this dispute will destroy nobody, because the waters have been muddied too badly. You need to walk away from this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? You're telling me that I'm supposed to have faith in this process, that the editors who are chronically in ANI "destroy themselves," and here we have two editors chronically in ANI, this time relating to their defense of material plagiarized from Metapedia (one of whom defended it vociferously, day after day, for weeks on end) and this is"muddy waters" he said-she said stuff. Ok. Block me NOW. I don't need to "walk away." I need to run. Please.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I have many hits because I participate in many; they aren't all about me, just as this one isn't. Tarc (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• As Director remains dissatisfied about the resolution of issues relating to Jews and Communism, and is evidently not content to leave the AN discussion to provide closure, and as there's a general Wikipedia policy issue here surrounding content which is perceived to be hate speech, I would support the referral of the Jews and Communism controversy (in its entirety) to WP:ARBCOMM. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Letrollmasterfedora

User:Letrollmasterfedora has demonstrated, by username and two edits (so far) that he is WP:NOTHERE to do anything constructive. Could an admin review and block, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, as was his friend/other account Lemestuffyomama (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

More Personal Attacks from User:86.174.240.211

On the Filipinos, the first problem is that this guy makes edits WITHOUT any edit summaries. His contributions to the article fit his own pleasure, and he and I went into edit war. Both of us got banned for 24 hours because of the 3-vert rule, okay. Then later when the block expired, I made a changed a couple of images, with edit summaries and explanations. However, he reverted them again without any edit summary or explanation.

He started to leave stupid messages on my talk page, impersonating an embassy worker for Spain in the Philippines, sending me silly messages about contacting the King of Spain - even though this IP comes from the U.K. He was already warned by Wikipedia administrators.

So recently, he left this message on my talk page.

"This guy "pacificWarrion" is stupid, I'm working for the Filipino people, for their reputation on this world, every information I shared is to give accurate information's about the Philippines, the Filipino people, their culture and history."

Now at this point, before yet another edit war starts, I think this guy should be blocked.

A. He makes edits without edit summaries
B. He continues to make personal attacks, even though he was already warned.

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

See this ANI thread, which was archived less than 24 hours ago, as well as this AN3 thread which resulted in both the 86' IP and PacificWarrior getting 24 hour blocks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And here are diffs of 86' getting rude on PacificWarrior's user talk after the block expired. Given these new comments and the racist/nationalistic nature of the user talk thread on the part of the 86' IP, a longer block is surely warranted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another message he left: "I'm a dear friend of ambassador Domecq, all your messages will be sent to the embassy. CODE NAME: AMOR, Greetings to my friends residing in the Philippines."

There seriously needs to be some admin work here.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Well, I gave the IP an only warning for NPA. Anything further should result in a block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week, because when I'd blocked them last time for 24 hours for edit-warring, I told them that any resumption of the personal attacks would lead to a much longer block. They chose to ignore me. Hopefully this is enough to convince them to go away. -- Atama頭 15:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Heavily implied legal threats

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K6ka&oldid=609007323#Angus_Taylor.27s_Wikipedia_page
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angus_Taylor_(politician)&action=history

The user has been blanking content, incessantly calling it 'defamatory'. The user has also left a message on one of the user's talk page. In the most recent edit, has removed more content by what appears to be a sockpuppet, as well indicating that action will be taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angus_Taylor_%28politician%29&diff=609039488&oldid=609038571

I do believe that the editor does simply not know that legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia, and may need some counseling with the acknowledgement that if they proceed, they will be blocked. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm notifying Louiseclegg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jridley2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this thread. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not doing that. Got caught up with some other real life stuff, was gonna do it only to see your reply. Tutelary (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been a long-running content dispute in regard to the page. Having gone over the content, I can see issues, but I'm not sure what the exact points of contention are. However, I note that there has been no discussion at all on the talk page. As the issues are unclear, and this is a BLP, I've reverted it way back to the pre-dispute state and fully protected the article for 30 days. That, however, does not address the current possible legal threat. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that if the user name is accurate, that user is the wife of Angus Taylor, as a result I left a COI template on their talk page to let them know the sensitivity of editing on a subject you're involved with. IT mainly comes down to the fact that they don't seem to realise that there are sources for these positions (not sure if they're reliable), what personal information she gleans from him personally is not referencible. Canterbury Tail talk 11:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit seems to confirm this. Canterbury Tail talk 11:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC

Well, reading Louiseclegg's post to K6ka's talk page, she sounds extremely frustrated with the state of the BLP article and feels that the subject is being misrepresented by his rivals. She may have a conflict-of-interest, but it's also important for the article to have a NPOV. I recommend directing her OTRS where there are volunteers who routinely deal with these kinds of concerns. I'll post a note on her talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

While I don't see any harm in directing the editor to OTRS, I wonder if it may be better to direct them at BLP/N or at least raise the article there (I've now done the later). I don't have that much experience with OTRS but I know they frequently raise BLP concerns at BLP/N anyway and of course they can't reveal what was said in the email which can make dealing with issues complicated. While not everyone at BLP/N is good at dealing with those with a strong COI like subjects and those closely related to them, there are definitely many with the necessary sensitivity and tact. So when the editor is willing to make their concerns public and use the other public wikipedia processes, it may not always be necessary to use OTRS. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good advice, Nil. I've seen some users with an admitted COI treated not so nicely on noticeboards but it wouldn't have hurt to direct the editor to WP:BLP/N as an alternative forum. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct by IP editor 94.194.205.197

IP editor 94.194.205.197 is being uncivil concerning Lvivske on Talk:Donetsk People's Republic and User talk:Toddy1#Comment.

• 10:37 18 May, accused Lvivske of "spreading misinformation". No evidence or examples provided by the IP editor to back up the accusation.
• 12:41 18 May stated that anything that Lvivske writes, should be taken with caution.
• 16:02 18 May Again accused Lvivske of a "deliberate attempt of misinformation", whilst at the same time denying making a personal attack on him/her.
• 07:49 19 May Stated that Lvivske "deliberately spreads false information, and apparently encourages others to do this."

He/she was warned about making uncivil comments at 15:07, 18 May 2014.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

They seem to be ripe for a block. This is clearly a single-purpose account which introduces POV into Ukrainian articles. Unfortunately, there recentle have been a lot of such POV-editing accounts, who believe that incivility is a way to prove that their POV is correct. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Abusive reverting, from same user, again, like last time

This user was told here on this page not to touch my update on the Nascar page. It's standard on the Nascar page, for the last 3 months, to list when the next race is going to be. -- But, a particular user came along earlier this month and deciding to keep un-doing the listing of the next race. There had never been a problem with it before this user started interfering. And as I said, they were already warned on here once; obviously they haven't learned anything.

Here's what it's SUPPOSED to look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=609178012&oldid=609169564 --- And here is how they keep blanking it out for no reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=609178620&oldid=609178012

Here is the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:United_States_Man

As I said, it's standard to list the next race, always has been. This needs to stop. My time is important to me and I shouldn't have to keep dealing with this. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

US Man has now been notified. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I was seconds away from notifying them. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)John seems to be referring to an ANI thread from earlier this month. There does not appear to have been any attempt to discuss this issue at the talk page or at either party's user talk. I suggest that based on this alone, the issue is not ripe for administrative intervention. You guys need to try talking this out, and engaging in other forms of dispute resolution. And contrary to John's claim, I don't see that US Man was "warned" as a result of the prior thread; instead, the same recommendation seems to have been made to try discussing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it "three months" or "always has been"? And the fact that "there's never been a problem with it before" is irrelevant - obviously there is now, so you need to discuss the issue with them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Also this edit summary is inappropriate - there was no "warning", you need to discuss instead of declaring "stop", and a dose of good faith instead of the bad you've been assuming would go a long way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought that user was warned. Perhaps they weren't specifically warned, I'm not sure. In any case, I thought the situation was done, but then user started the same stuff again. It's standard to list when the next Nascar race is, it always has been. And for someone to keep erasing it for really no reason is not good. The date of the next race will stay, as it always has before. Me trying to talk to them about it before has proved no good - I'm not trying again. If it had done any good, I wouldn't have ended up coming back here in the first place.

Also, the reason I said "stop" is because my attempts in the past to be nice about it with them, fell of deaf ears. I thought "stop" might be a little more effective. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: First, "It's standard to list when the next Nascar race is, it always has been." is completely wrong. Look throughout 2013 in the history. That was definintely not standard. Second, "The date of the next race will stay, as it always has before." is endorsing your version, implying that your think your version should always be the way and that no one should change it, hinting at WP:OWN. Third, you say it is not good to erase it, but what good does it do to have an empty heading there? That makes no sense. United States Man (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lots of things "always have been", it's not necessarily right that they have. And above you said "for the last 3 months" - that's not "always has been". Also your declaring "The date of the next race will stay" is inappropriate here; you don't get to declare unilaterally "this is how it shall be". You must discuss it. If directly discussing or discussion on the talk page didn't work, then the next step is WP:DRN, not WP:ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: (edit conflict)All I see here is a poor attempt by a hot-head (please excuse my minor incivility and name-calling) at getting his way. What he says is standard proceedure was never standard until he showed up trying to change everything. What it is SUPPOSED to look like is to have nothing there until after the race and someone writes a report. That is a summary section, not a schedule. No sense in putting a heading if there is no summary. This is becoming quite laughable at this point. I since a little WP:OWN in the extreme ways he defends this. United States Man (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it really doesn't change that no admin action is really needed here other than, perhaps, to warn the both of you not to edit war. If you guys want to establish a standard for NASCAR articles pointing in either direction, you should probably take it to WP:NASCAR. Or at least discuss it at the talk page. Or do any of what's listed at WP:DRN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Johnsmith2116: This is a collaborative project. If you can't collaborate, don't participate.--v/r - TP 03:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• People do not get to inflict their self-declared rules on the project. We only have room for one GodKing, and his name is Jimbo all hail Jimbo the panda ₯’ 10:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:DangerousPanda, have you informed Jimbo that you have mentioned him here, as you are required to do by the edit notice and message at the top of the page? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Careful, mon ami, there's enough people that seem to think that's what the edit notice says - no need to jokingly say that line anymore :-) the panda ₯’ 19:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, it also appears that United States Man contacted you about this issue back in April on your user talk page but rather than respond, you deleted his messages. That was an ideal opportunity to discuss this situation rather than have it escalate to WP:AN/I. Even better, why don't you both take this issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR where more editors who are interested in NASCAR can weigh in with their views. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but that's not perfectly correct - back then, we had already had a few exchanges in the editing box, and when that person put messages on my talk page, I returned by putting a couple on his page, I didn't reply on my own page, I went on his where I thought they might be more likely to see it. But thanks for your concern. .. From now, as far as I'm concerned, this issue is done. It's such a petty thing. If is bothers someone so much that the date of the next race is there (something that I had SEEN SOMEONE ELSE DO FIRST BEFORE I MYSELF STARTED FOLLOWIG SUIT), then I won't put it there. It's not worth the hassle. I have a good enough life worth living that I don't need to engage is this garbage. That user isn't the only user like them that I've encountered - they are known as electronic bullies, and when someone backs down to them they are a "wimp", but if someone stands up to them, they are a "hot-head". So, basically, either I'm a wimp. or a hothead. ... But for anyone interested, keep in mind what I said; when I first went to that nascar page, the date of the next race was already there, which means SOMEONE ELSE has already been doing it before I myself ever began doing it also. So, when the day comes (and it will) that someone else puts the date of the next race there, and this particular user wants to revert them the same as they did me, all this junk will happen all over again - but it won't be me next time, it'll be someone else. As for me, I'm done with it. If it gives them some pleasure or sense of self esteem to feel like Mr. Big Shot by getting the last word or the last whatever, then let them have it - it's obviously a lot more important to them than to me. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Johnsmith, everything you just said shows that you're the bully - not anyone else - but it's ok, we still want ya to stick around. Seriously, just because someone else screwed up a couple of times by adding the date, doesn't mean it's the right way to do it - so when someone shows you it's the wrong way, it's usually good practice to re-evaluate. That's how Wikipedia works. This certainly could have avoided a whackload of drama where you're pissed off, other people are pissed off, all because of an easily-correctable minor error that was correctable by simple stopping the panda ₯’ 18:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So here what you're saying -- that if someone stands up to a bully, then that makes THAT person the bully. So basically, if the person backs down, they are a wimp, but if they give the bully the business back, then they are the bully themselves too. I don't understand your logic, but to each their own I suppose. ... But as I said earlier, I'm done with it, I'm done putting the date of the next race as it had always been put before I even got there -- let someone else put it there and then THEY can deal with all this junk when they too get reverted for no good reason. I have things that need tended to in real life that are much more important than trying to get through to a user on here whose main mission in life is to see to it that the date of the next race isn't available for people to see. If they want to take the date off, then they can take it off -- and when someone ELSE puts it back on and then gets reverted by the user in question, then THAT person can deal with him -- I'm done with it. My original reason for coming to Wikipedia 7 years ago was to get the scores of games at a site that didn't have a lot of flashing banners that slow my computer down (as with Yahoo Sports). I didn't know that it would turn into all this. I myself don't go around reverting people's good edits for no reason.

This is finished as far as I'm concerned. It's not needed to keep responding to me here, as I'm not likely to come back and read anything here, it wouldn't do a service to keep talking about this anymore. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, John, as an outsider, all this looks like is someone made a bold edit, someone got reverted... the next step is to discuss. Reverting isn't bullying, and edit warring, while improper, is equally improper for all involved. Reverts can be frustrating, especially when you believe—as you clearly do—that your version is representative of consensus. But that something is the status quo, or even has had a clear consensus articulated in the past, does not mean a revert is improper, nor does it mean it's vandalism or bullying. In short, while I understand you're frustrated and annoyed—perhaps more so because your last ANI thread led you to believe you were in the right—you need to calm down. Nobody's calling anybody a wimp or a bully here, and honestly, I don't even know if US Man is correct in his revert (nor does it matter for the purposes of this board). What matters is that you all need to discuss it and come to a consensus. That's just how things work here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, John, we're saying that United States Man was never the bully and it has been you this whole time. And your instance that USM is the bully really just shows us how much you're willing to push others around and how little criticism you're willing to take. I'm of a different opinion than Panda, I want you gone. We don't need you pushing around other editors. This is a collaborative project, people are meant to work together. You've shown that you cannot work with other people, you only want to get your way. That's bullying. Had you tried to talk to United States Man, like he tried to talk to you, I'd be more willing to work with you. That hasn't happened. You're the bully.--v/r - TP 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism from a range of IP's

This has been going on for months, an editor from IP range 202.152.86.xx adds incorrect information to movie articles, mostly cast members.

Special:Contributions/202.152.86.232
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.234
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.235
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.237
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.239
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.241
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.242
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.244
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.248
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.249
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.251
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.253
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.254

I am not sure what to do about this, as they pick new articles all the time, and the vandalism is so subtle that it is very hard to spot. Seaphoto^Talk 20:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the whole /24 range for 1 year. If similar edits persist, please bring it back here, and we can take a look at further measures to stop this sort of edit pattern. -- The Anome (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. May I suggest expanding that to the 20 through the 50 range, (example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.152.86.227) as well? I just found other examples of this pattern in the that range (along with the others you can see above) and it extends into the 50 range too. I know this is wide, but I can see few useful contributions from the range (and they are from the same editor who vandalizes) , and this is the type of vandalism that persists, if not found, for years. I stepped through all the IP's in the range from 00 and 10 and they are clean. Seaphoto^Talk 02:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The block covers 202.152.86.*. If I understand you correctly, you want the addresses from 202.152.86.0 to 202.152.86.50 blocked; in that case, the existing block also covers those IPs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. Yes, that block is exactly what I rather clumsily asked for. This is the first time in almost 8 years I have run across this situation, so I wasn't familiar with the requirements. I appreciate it! Seaphoto^Talk 06:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrschimpf

Can you please block or warn this editor? This edit here is disruptive in attempt to drive away productive contributors and also harassment as well. --2602:306:CE9A:860:58B9:4B3C:ED4B:7DEC (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

OP has had issues with using a mass of IPV6 addresses to rapidly remove information from Reno television station articles earlier this month without any kind of discussion and later battleground editing, along with a spurious WP:AIV report against me and another user who were removing their edits after I asked for two weeks of semi-protection on the articles. Nyttend (talk · contribs) with the assistance of Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) placed a rangeblock on the pool of IPV6 addresses they were using and that block seemed to just lift as they went right back to removing the content with just a spare drop of WP:SPECULATION. My only action this round has been a talk notice that they need to discuss their edits before going forward and not to edit war, but then a redacted excuse that they're not fast-switching the IP's on purpose, which hardly seems to be the case. I extended that they could edit if they explained why and stuck to one IP or username, but taking me to ANI based on reverting their unexplained edits is a little extreme. Also note that I wasn't notified on my own talk of this report by the OP as required. Nate • (chatter) 12:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I previously blocked Special:Block/2602:306:CE9A:860::/64. Is a reblock appropriate for the whole range? Anyone who repeats disruptive behavior immediately after a block's expiration hasn't gotten the point, especially when it's clearly not a new person. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Without comment on whether the person is actually being disruptive (I do see edit warring though), yes this would again be the range to block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP chain is continuing to change information at Reed Cowan, calling an editor trying to properly edit the article disgraceful and linking to WP:GAME. In that case it looks like someone also editing their own BLP and has been an edit war going on for months between them, good editors just trying to edit properly and the BLP subject which may need a long period of semi'ing to clean up. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And now it looks like the 'disgraceful' editor was blocked for 24h for personal attacks against another editor regarding another article, proving the Reed Cowan article really needs someone to look through it to neutralize it; as I've never heard of him it isn't going to be me though. Nate • (chatter) 08:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A case of incompetent spammer

A spammer, User:Tutza.anghel has posted several Romanian language religious rants. I request that she be blocked according to WP:COMPETENCE. I do not want to attack her, but it seems that she posits advertisement for a book containing a proposal to reform the Constitution of the Romanian state according to theocratic principles, and not even the usual arguments for theocracy, but imho, a constitutional reform which is a product of mystical delirium about the doomsday. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Her user page at ro:Utilizator:Tutza.anghel was deleted for spamming. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seems unlikely to contribute positively, but with only three visible edits and nothing since the first warning (a level one warning), I'd honestly have sooner taken a wait-and-see approach and sent to AIV if Tutza.anghel passed a final warning (though for a textdump like this I might have considered an only warning). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

She is a cross-wiki spammer, see ro:Utilizator:Tutza.anghel and ro:Utilizator:Tuţa Anghel, where she repeatedly spammed ro.wiki with pretty much the same info as on her en.wiki user page (content still available in Google Cache). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've indefblocked the account: cross-wiki activity demonstrates that this is a persistent activity that is unlikely to be amenable to gentle persuasion. -- The Anome (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Long Time behavioral Problem with a Tendentious Editor

• Disneywizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• It's a Small World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has for three years now continued to feel that every time that the ride/song "Its a Small world" is mentioned, it must be all lowercase letters because that is the way that Disney stylizes it. There was a discussion three years ago and he had no support for the changes based on MOS:TM, yet he has continued and persisted without end. Last week, he changed it again. I reverted but he continues to want to edit war without end, while adding personal attacks toward me in his edit summaries, [222], [223], and finally telling me to get psychiatric help.

I have linked MOS:TM to this user several times and he simply does not agree with it. MOS:TM says When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. The sources all use upper case: OC Register [224], and the Deseret News [225], and then the LA Times [226], as well as Reuters [227]. This just looks like a case of I don't like it.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I propose an indefinite topic-ban for User:Disneywizard for "It's a Small World" throughout the project, to be enforced by escalating blocks the panda ₯’ 00:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. JOJ ^Hutton 00:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Based on the circumstances, I also agree. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Can anyone else please chime in here. I feel helpless to do anything short of edit warring with this guy who seems to have nothing to lose. ANI was once a place to come and get some perspective on certain incidents. A few years ago an editor post here and everyone would have an opinion. Seems that lately, ANI isn't as helpful of a board as it once was. I realize that we are all busy in real life and that not everything needs immediate attention, but I'm hoping to get this settled in the next few days at least. User:DangerousPanda, an admin, suggested a topic ban for User:Disneywizard. I'm not sure if DangerousPanda was serious about that or not, but would anyone else be in favor of a topic ban? Or can there be an enforceable topic ban with just the two of us discussing it? I'm really hoping to get some feedback on this because this guy will not stop at all.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've warned User:Disneywizard and I'll try to keep an eye on him. Feel free to notify me directly if he continues to engage in personal attacks. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what to do about the article though. I don't want to edit war with him, but at the same time, I don't want him to think he gets his way and have the article not follow some simple guidelines just because he is willing to edit war.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If a topic ban is necessary, given this user's userpage, it should probably be for trademark stylization and capitalization variants. I'm not convinced one is necessary though; I feel like a year or two ago this sort of ridiculousness would have been considered disruptive enough to merit a block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit, by the way, is a fairly blatant WP:POINT violation: substituting "it's a small world"(stylized as It's a small world by Wikipedia) for It's a Small World (stylized as "it's a small world" by The Walt Disney Company) is hard to characterize as anything but disruptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And DW just reverted my edit to (primarily) remove his caps changes. Warned for edit warring. It's only his first revert in the last 24 hours, but just from skimming the last 500 edits, I see there are easily a dozen (maybe two dozen) reverts from DW pushing the caps variant since August 2011 (and Jojhutton reverting back many if not most of those times, but by no means all). DW seems to be insisting that there is no consensus to apply MOS:TM to the names of theme park rides, based on a fairly strict reading of MOS:TM and arguing that these names are not trademarks(?). This seems to me to fall well within the definition of tendentious editing, and possibly even a candidate for WP:LAME. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban from 'Its a small world'. It has been explained to him why he is wrong, he clearly understands the concept as evidenced by his pointy edits listed above, he has actively chosen to disregard the advice. At this point the quickest, easiest and most hassle-free solution is a strict topic ban with escalating blocks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:68.161.242.243 removing "the Bronx" from Bronx neighborhood articles, also HelperBot glitch

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

---

For the past 11 months, this IP has essentially done nothing except remove "the Bronx" from the ledes of Bronx neighborhood articles. In March I gave the IP a final warning, and they made five edits of the exact same type today. I reported this at AIV, but an apparent HelperBot glitch is removing the report, saying that the IP has been blocked, when no block has actually been issued. Since the IP appears to be fairly static, I believe a substantial block is justified here. Can someone please take a look and issue a (real) block? Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and someone should look into that HelperBot glitch. The two edits are here and here. BMK (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC

Hello? ... lo ... lo ... lo ... Is anyone home? ... om ... om ... om BMK (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oversight, neglected to notify the IP last night. I've done so now. BMK (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

An AIV report on this IP would probably be declined as stale now since there haven't been any edits since the 16th. That Helperbot glitch needs to be looked into though; it seems to be basing its removals for the 68' IP on garbage data; though the users credited with the blocks had issued blocks around the same time, in the case of the second one the block length and options seem to have been pulled out of thin air. I wonder if this is happening more often, just that nobody notices. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't stale when I reported it to AIV shortly after it happened, only to be thwarted from having an admin examine it by the HB glitch. BMK (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, notified Wimt (talk · contribs) since it's a bot he maintained that malfunctioned here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I blocked the editor for a month. The IP is clearly editing disruptively, and has been doing so non-stop for almost a year now. Just because the IP hasn't edited in 4 days doesn't mean they've stopped, not when they've been doing this for so long. Granted, they may not even try to edit again until after a month has passed, but at least there is a block log in place. -- Atama頭 18:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. BMK (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

IP user wiki-harrassing

Hello,

I am fed up with a bunch of IP-hopping editors who have been harassing me in connection to the article and website Finnbay during the last few months. This is a very controversial website, and before the controversy (as detailed in the article) that made the site notable, there was a campaign of adding spam links to Wikipedia on its behalf (some of it is detailed here). The article in question has been heavily editorialized by the proponents of this website (who seem surprisingly numerous given the source's niché status), but I would not really consider this site a WP:RS. That's why I sometime ago made a sitewide search for outside links to Finnbay in Wikipedia (incl. web citations), and replaced them with comparable citations from more reliable sources and removing any unnecessary links to the website. Now, 209.222.18.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) does not seem to happy with what I did, and is calling my actions vandalism. After I undid him returning the external links to this site, he called me a "Finnish government agent vandalizing Wiki", which is clearly a personal attack. --hydrox (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So what's the status? Are we going to give a clique (or one person) pushing for promotional material in Wikipedia a free pass? I am tired of working with these people (or a single stubborn person using multiple IPs) and harassing me. I have gone past one edit war with them (him/her), and I will not engage in another one. --hydrox (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Harassment or not, the editor is clearly just a spammer. Anyone who is adding a huge volume of links to a single web site in an aggressive manner is someone I call a spammer. Considering this IP was used for some other purpose earlier this month, they've probably already abandoned it or will soon (as a dynamic IP) but to be safe I blocked it for a week.

As to the larger issue at hand, it might be worth discussing on WP:RSN whether Finnbay is a reliable source. If not, perhaps it should be blacklisted if there is a campaign to raise its visibility by indiscriminately linking to it on the project. -- Atama頭 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Desk Ref

The user appears to be in intermittently-active troll who's trying to get me into trouble one way or another, as a review of Desk Ref (talk · contribs) indicates. He's managed to trick at least one editor into falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry. Instead, I suspect that the user in question has many different guises. But in any case, User:Desk Ref needs to be put on ice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

At first glance, the place to go is SPI, as none of the recent edits are exactly block-worthy. I agree with BB that this account is likely not disclosing their other accounts legitimately. Doc talk 07:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Eep ;) Doc talk 08:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

An SPI. Excellent. Maybe we can finally pin down who Desk Ref actually is. With recent activity, a checkuser may be able to determine that. Obviously his two-year-old activity is staler than the 13th donut in a baker's dozen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Bugs. You haven't "made it" until you get accused of being a sockpuppet and/or master. I had my initiation years ago. When it happened to me I welcomed CheckUser. By the way, Tomahawker fed edited as recently as a month ago, I think the cut-off for CU data is around 3 months so it shouldn't be stale. -- Atama頭 17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now I feel blessed. NOT! I found a behavioral link between one of the IP's and both the user Desk Ref and that Tomahawk fed... which, by the way, the latter is another play on "Axman 8" from like five years ago. It could be that same impostor from 2009, or it could be an impostor of an impostor. But I'm hoping the SPI will result in that guy finally being sent to the bit-bucket. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The SPI was a waste of time. Regardless, the user Desk Ref is a harassment-only user who should be indef'd. Can't someone at least do that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit history of Desk Ref shows that they most certainly aren't a "harassment-only user". I'm pretty sure this is an alternate account of someone, their manner of speaking is very familiar like that of an established editor, but without knowing who that is (or suspecting) we can't take any action. The only problematic edits from this user (to me) are this edit (and only because someone shouldn't determine consensus by "counting") and this edit (which is flat-out harassment, I'll admit). This edit is also not stellar (and I expect this is one that really bothers you Bugs, for obvious reasons) but I wouldn't give a person more than a warning for a comment like that. Other than that, though, this editor's behavior hasn't been all that terrible. Besides those dodgy comments I've already mentioned, there is a combination of reasonable discussion page/noticeboard comments and some article work. If this editor didn't behave like a sock I don't think I'd pay them much attention at all.

I'm not going to block someone for probably being a sock of some unknown person. I really doubt any other admin would either. -- Atama頭 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin Atama is correct that the edits (linked above) that I made are problematic. I don't edit here much, but it looks like I got myself tangled up this year in AN3, AN/I, AIV, and SPI. So I must start off by apologizing to Baseball Bugs for any actions that I have done to have him report on me in all of those venues. I will strive to make any future edits productive improvements to the encyclopedia that will not cause anyone grief. If consensus allows me to continue editing, I will do so for the remainder of this season. After that I won't be back most likely until Spring 2016. Thank you for your time on this matter. Desk Ref (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:69.47.197.27

I think someone should take a look at these edits by User:69.47.197.27. Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's just vandalism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Or it seems to be related to this SPI case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Auburn Tigers football

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

---

This page is being frequently targeted with poor information regarding national championship. I have presented information on the body of the page, and have tried to start a conversation on the talk page. It's not just one poster who's doing this. Basically, a large group of posters want, or think that Auburn has more national titles than they actually claim. As you can see they claim only 1957, and 2010. There are a total of 5 national titles awarded by NCAA documented selectors, but 3 of those 5 aren't officially claimed by Auburn i.e. 1913, 1983, 1993. They are referenced in other material from the University, but no where does it make an outright claim, or change the status of what they claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmoon353 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not an administrator issue. You started a discussion at the talk page, I see. Now you should wait for a few days to see who responds. Making demands and calling reasonable people who just happen to disagree with you vandals, as you did in the talk page discussion you started, is not a good way to arrive at an understanding with others. Just chill for a few days, see where the discussion goes, and be willing to hear other viewpoints and reach a consensus. --Jayron32 02:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Rapid Wind

This editor continues to add unsourced info about the death of a member of the band Moi dix Mois. I explained several times that they must provide reliable sources for cause of death and the person's real name (they were known only by a stage name). They continue to add it and now use uncivil edit summaries toward me. I also warned them using the Vandal templates twice. Xfansd (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the 3RR and BLP violation, I am a bit concerned with Rapid Wind's use of edit summaries in these four reverts in the last 24 hours:

• "Undid revision 609466324 by Xfansd (talk) I am a reporter in Japan covering this death. Kengo has advertised his real name all over the internet. See his flick page (URL inserted here)" Rapid Wind, 02:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Undid revision 609468030 by Xfansd (talk) Well, since it doesn't matter who you are, either, I'll continue to stomp on you." Rapid Wind, 02:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Undid revision 609469681 by Xfansd (talk) STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP." Rapid Wind, 03:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Undid revision 609471052 by Xfansd (talk) Call the police, this is a hate crime. I am stomping on your Wikipedia reversions." Rapid Wind, 03:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A block would seem to be appropriate here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that Xfansd has also received a vandal warning template for his repeated reversions of legitimate information, which he later removed. Just now I intend to add another vandal warning template to his talk page, bringing the number to two. Rapid Wind — Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Rapid Wind — Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And with the above comments, I've blocked for 72 hours. If any admin feels the need to extend to indef, please feel free to do so. Connormah (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And Rapid Wind blocked 72 hours. Would support extending to indefinite. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased article and removal of reliable references in 2002 Gujarat riots

This ani is about Darkness Shines (talk) and Vanamonde93 (talk) along with the administrators who supported them . In this old version of the page[228] 16:38, 14 February 2013‎ Rahul Catlover (talk | contribs)‎ . . (93,562 bytes) (+87)‎ . . (→‎Criminal prosecutions) , the criminal prosecution section [229] The reference number 79 is removed in the present version as it states muslims got life imprisonment [230] : second case of reference removal, [231] this also states conviction of muslims , third case of reference removal . reference number 85 was removed [232] as this was also convicting muslims, ..fourth case of reference removal , reference number 86 was removed [233] , this was also mentioning the conviction of muslims, fifth case of reference removal,reference number 86 was removed [234] . as this was also pointing at conviction of muslims for killing a hindu, last case of reference removal in my point (as i am getting tired and sad that such things are happening in Wikipedia with the support of editors and administrators) reference number 88 was removed [235]. All the above can be found here [236] and then compare it with the current version here [237]. Now Darkness shines and vanamonde has lots of explaining to do along with other administrators and users who were supporting them.

I hope there are good faith editors who would make sure that the page remains free from any bias or partiality. If someone has time to go through all the above references , the article can be improved

P.S. If you have extra time go through this The article is heavily biased against Hindus. The violence against Muslims is vividly described [[In this version of talk page [238] , quite a large number of users have raised the same issue. one editor even provided large number of references here [239] , but still the current editor mentioned that books and authors are more reliable than newspapers and media [240] (The sources are fine, academic ones are better then newspapers. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)) . Now how can one say that outsiders who don't have any access to postmortem reports and forensic evidence describe such gruesome details [| here ]

In the Attack on Hindus section all these references were not used even though they were mentioned in talk page [241] dr amit mehta stabbed in muslim dominated juhapura [242] , harish parmar shot by bootleggers and the article from timesofindia admitting riots hit all class [243] Amrit Chagganlal hacked to death [244] , [245] , [246] , [247] . All these references were not used by the editors as it would expose the truth that Hindus also suffred during communal riots. And so all those references from respectable and known indian media is ignored in favour of books and authors who were never part of the investigations. The facts mentioned in those books were never supported by any reputed indian media.

I am not suggesting word by word editing of my comments. but to include the references which were removed from crminal prosecutions with the correct language as mentioned in the first paragraph along with the references mentioned in third para with the correct language.These references are from reliable sources but how they will be written its up to administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.36.29 (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

112.79.39.62 (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

...and this is why the block of DS was a bad idea. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Great eatsshootsandleaves ...you are suggesting removal of references from reliable sources were justified . would you kindly go through the details atleast the first and last para. are you the only administrator here.There should be others 112.79.36.29 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I request All of you please go through the details above: User:Sandstein, User:Callanecc, User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves, User:EdJohnston, User:Drmies, User:Hipocrite, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. 112.79.36.29 (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• That would be a lot easier if this wasn't so unclearly formatted. I've tweaked your roll call a bit, obviously. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• And, IP editor, yes you are perfectly entitled to edit as an IP. But I assume 112.79.39.144 is you--where on earth do I leave a note to say that this "notification" is so far from neutral that it can't see straight? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry actually i was feeling depressed that eatshootsandleaves didn't support my views : as i took so much time to edit. So i thought of tagging evryone involved in the arbitration request of Darkness shines. I want to know why those references are not present in the version of the page for last few months. And the other references mentioned in talk page that article were not used for editing. Main thing is that editors and administrators want to present a biased view of the article and i am trying to expose to the administrators112.79.36.29 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're not here to elicit sympathy: you want to "expose" us--well, good luck. In the meantime I'll direct the reader's attention to this set of recent edits, by Kumarila, in which this source, an article by Ainslie Thomas Embree, was removed. "books and authors are more reliable than newspapers and media", you claimed was said--well, I don't care what was said or whether you reported this accurately, but there is no doubt that books, if judged reliable and published by reputable presses (in this case Routledge) are deemed more reliable than newspaper articles, yes, if only because they can take the long view; and let's not pretend that the Indian press as a whole has a stellar reputation. Removing the Embree citation also removes a (re)statement of the official cause given for the train burning--and for those who think the article is biased, well, no details are cited, but one could add a quote from Embree: "There is no doubt about the horrors of the massacre of Muslims that followed, with Muslim women especially being targeted and brutally raped. The death count for Muslims was put at about 2,000, with 200,000 homeless, after the lawlessness raged for almost six months."

  That same edit also adds this, an opinion piece from a journalist's blog.

  Kumarila also adds this article, which reports on a report that exonerates Modi and others, but fails to include the critique of the SIT report in that article--for instance, "On this [Modi supposedly allowing the police to allow Hindus to "vent their anger" over the Godhra massacre], the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Mr Modi during the riots". Finally, they add this opinion piece (it's so obviously an opinion piece to anyone who reads it), to support "many other observers have objected to the use of words like "genocide" and "pogrom" for the Gujarat riots". So yeah, I agree that the article lacks proper NPOV, and while pouring over old talk page comments is fun (actually, it's not--since they're poorly written, unclear, and often soapboxy), it's much more helpful to look at the current state of the article which has, no doubt, received plenty of attention since the elections and will probably get a lot more. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not denying that muslims got killed. I agree that muslims got killed in large numbers. But the fact that Hindus were also killed can be proved .There were lots of references in this version of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_riots&oldid=538247527#Criminal_prosecutions .. which is not present in the current version especially . I want to know why these references in relation to gujarat riots were removed. Please don't try to divert the attention from the first paragraph of this topic. I accept your view that books are more reliable than newspapers(this debate is over) . But coming to the main point now you have to explain why those references were removed from the page and administrators of Wikipedia can't be ignorant of the fact. lots of references present here is removed and administrators supported it . Explain why these references were removed [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] from the article even though they were present here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_riots&oldid=538247527#Criminal_prosecutions

So Drmies (talk) please enlighten why those references are not present in the current revision of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots#Criminal_prosecutions

Yes Vanamonde93 (talk) you can help by explaining my query above 112.79.39.94 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep claiming that administrators somehow had a role in content? Indeed, this entire fiasco is a content dispute - one that can and should be discussed on the article talkpage. The sole reason that you appear to have brought it here was to claim that "admininstrators supported it". No. Administrators don't determine content. Editors discuss content on the article talkpage and gain consensus. Some of those editors happen to be admins. I see no proof that admins anywhere said "we are going to take X out of this article, and don't you dare put it back". ANI is not going to decide what goes into an article - that's not our job the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Look I am not blaming every Administrator on Wikipedia but some administrator must have supported the removal of references from reliable sources . I know every editor is not administrator but all administrator are editors 112.79.39.94 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am not taking responsibility for anything I didn't do, and what I was supposed to have endorsed when, I don't have a clue--in part because, as others have also noted, this is such a poor report. But, to cite one example, you ask why this reference isn't in the article. Why should it? The conviction of those nine is in the article, with this as a reference. If it makes you feel better, you can add "your" reference to the article, and then there will be two. But as the panda notes, this is hardly a matter for ANI, since you haven't even begun to make the case that admins are somehow responsible of misdoings here. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay i will try to edit the page 2002 Gujarat riots backed by these references [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] and these [260] [261] [262] [263][264]from reliable reputed Indian Media websites India Today The Times of India The Indian Express Hindustan Times Deccan Herald 112.79.39.94 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean "I will begun the discussion on the article talkpage in order to try and get consensus to add some or all of the links I feel meet WP:RS and are pertinent", right? You're obviously beyond the "be WP:BOLD part of things the panda ₯’ 19:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde93

I am rather unclear why I have been dragged here, because I cannot remember a direct interaction with this IP, and a look at their contributions tells me nothing. The IP has provided no diffs, and the only comparison shows DS consolidating bullet points into a paragraph, and substituting academic sources for media sources. DS is currently blocked, so I don't know if he can post here; is there anything else I can help with? If at all there is an issue, it would seem to be for the RS noticeboard. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@112.79.39.94: And which query would that be? You have a rather long and incoherent post up there that I'm having trouble figuring out. If you mean why the references were changed, it is because academic references are significantly better than media ones, as has been explained to you many times over. Also, it would help if you paid a little more attention to wiki-syntax; I apologize for modifying your comments, but you started a new section, which I do not believe was what you wanted to do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost majority of Wikipedia article has references from media websites. So I can't support this law ( references from newspapers , news channels, Indian media are all unreliable)which is made for a particular page not for every Wikipage. And i didn't start a new discussion . I said the same thing as i mentioned in the first paragraph of the entire section. If you kindly read the beginning of this ani request--112.79.39.94 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Vanadmonde93, can I ask why you created a subsection like this, instead of simply continuing the thread? This isn't an ArbCom report, we don't need separate sections if it's continuing the thread - in fact, since you're replying here, it's just confusing the whole thread!! the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I've been posting on SPIs for a bit, where I believe separate sections is considered good etiquette (thought I might be wrong there, too.) D'you want me to restructure it? In any case, shouldn't this thread be closed? There is nothing here for ANI. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Separate sections in SPI are very uncommon, aside from those set up automatically (each report having subsections for the reporter, the accused and other editors, and one for admins/clerks/CU). You probably shouldn't be adding them there either. (Not that I'm a clerk or anyone of authority at SPI, this is just from observation after being involved in many, many reports.) Usually you only see people creating sections for each person's comments at ArbCom or RfCs, and in those cases you're explicitly instructed to do so. At ANI and most noticeboards, it's only recommended that you create a subsection when you have a very good reason for some sort of break in reporting (for example, when you're dramatically changing the subject but with something still relevant to the thread, such as requesting a topic ban or the like). Doing so flippantly can look like an attempt to grab attention though I don't think that was your intent at all here. -- Atama頭 22:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks; as you said, attention grabbing was not my intent. Regardless, I'm assuming there's no point trying to set it straight now, because the filing party has taken the issue to RSN as instructed by Dangerous Panda/ESL? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have been pinged above. The original post is too confusingly written for me to process, see generally WP:GRA. I'm however ready to listen to a request at WP:AE that convincingly explains why this needs action in the form of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  07:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

---

Could somebody explain WP:no personal attacks to this user: User:The shaman poet? See this and this for the most recent examples. Said user rather obviously won't listen to any advice I give. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

He doesn't seem to be learning very fast. [265] HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

multiple copyright violations by User:Commons sibi

Resolved

CCI is opened and contributor is indefinitely blocked pending an indication that copyright policies are understood and will be followed. See [266]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems that User:Commons sibi has been posting copyrighted information from various internet sources word for word. I am posting a few links as examples,

• 1.
• User post: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Competition_Commission_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=599555660
• Removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Competition_Commission_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=608556092
• 2.
• User post: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureau_of_Civil_Aviation_Security&diff=prev&oldid=601795537
• Removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureau_of_Civil_Aviation_Security&diff=prev&oldid=608555082
• 3.
• User post: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_India&diff=599267338&oldid=599243670
• Removal:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=608416326

The concerned editor contacted me via my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGsingh&diff=608570262&oldid=608559233) and said he would provide me with an explanation after 24 hours, so i decided to wait, but it has been 4 days and no response has been given.

I feel that given the copyright violations that I have found, there must be many more that the editor has done which has not been uncovered. It doesn't appear it is being done with malicious intent, but the plagiarism must be reverted somehow.

Gsingh (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gsingh: You may want to use this form to email Oversight to revdelete the copyright-violating diffs. Epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer copyright-infringing diffs to be revdel'd, not oversighted. You OK with that, Epicgenius? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As I have found the requisite five instances of copyright infringement, I have filed a report at CCI. The user remains unblocked pending his response to this thread and the opening of the CCI case. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Demiurge1000: Or that can be done—but the best forum for this is WP:CP or WP:CCI. This thread should be closed and moved there instead. Epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I was considering putting it on WP:CCI but it said to try discussing it on this forum before. Gsingh (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Link spam

Several IPs in and around China have popped up adding fansites to these two article: Aliens_vs._Predator_(video_game) and Aliens_versus_Predator_(video_game), threatening to report anyone who removes them, calling them names, all that yada-yada. The user(s) state that they are official sites, but the sites explicitly state that they are not. I pointed this out to them, which led to refusal to acknowledge it, trying to sneak them in with false edit summaries, and now flat-out refusing to communicate beyond dismissive edit summaries. A clear case of tendentious editing in my opinion. Eik Corell (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Aliens versus Predator (video game) for a month. Black Kite seems to have already semi-protected Aliens vs. Predator (video game) for the same period. -- The Anome (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Got distracted in between semi-ing and making a note back here :) Black Kite kite (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Are these non-commercial fansites? Remind me why we shouldn't include links to them? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all non-commercial fansites are bad, just that most are. The ones that are larger, longer-lasting, and have potential notability set from more reliable sources can be reasonable to link to, with the understanding they still are SPSs and often parrot information reported by reliable sources.

This is not the case for the above AvP articles. They should definitely not be included. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• avpuniverse.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.avpuniverse.com
• avpgalaxy.net: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.avpgalaxy.net
• avpnation.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.avpnation.com
• avpunknown.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.avpunknown.com

Found some more spam on Aliens versus Predator 2. This is looking like blacklist fodder. MER-C 13:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

‎User:Volunteer Marek deleting well-sourced material from Robert Kagan article w/false recourse to BLP

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

---

User:Volunteer Marek has been engaged in removing any reference to Robert Kagan being a neoconservative, etc., though there are now four RS supporting the characterization, and the material has been stable consensus in the article for more than two years[267]. ‎User:Volunteer Marek makes vague unspecific reference to BLP policy, but refuses to discuss specifics or indicate what provisions in the policy support his actions, thereby obstructing progress on the article.
Note that he recently was engaged in similar conduct on the Victoria Nuland (who is Kagan's wife article. That article has been stabilized, but the arguments in which he attempts to make recourse to policy that doesn't support his assertions is disruptive.
I note that VM was recently brought here in relation to articles on the crisis in Ukraine, to which the Nuland article is directly related, and the Kagan article indirectly. I'm of the opinion that perhaps he has an agenda with respect to eliminating from Wikipedia any text that might cast aspersion on the role of US officials in bringing about the ongoing crisis. Note the following edit summaries. [268][269][270][271] He is condescending, dismissive of sources with no legitimate grounds, and makes unsubstantiated allegations of WP:OR, violations [272], making for a toxic editing environment. There is a thread on the BLP notice board, here, in which some of his baseless and unsupported assertions can be seen[273]
In talk page threads Talk:Robert_Kagan#Dispute_over_sourcing_of_characterization_of_Kagan_as_a_.22leading_neo-conservative.22, Talk:Victoria_Nuland#WP:BRD_Text_of_rewrite_of_section_on_the_extremely_well-known_obscene_remark_made_by_Nuland and Talk:Victoria_Nuland#BLP_restart I've queried for specifics regarding the policy-based rationale occasions[274], and have made reference to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Note that he continual dismisses RS on the basis of an apparently false recourse to non-existent provision in the BLP policy. These are the four sources he claims don't meet BLP standards, or in the case of the first, support the statement.

1. Robert Kagan, "Present at the Re-Creation: A Neoconservative Moves On, Foreign Affairs, July-August, 2008.
2. A neocon by any other name, Guardian
3. A conservative split aids Obama on Egypt, Washington Post
4. What Ukraine really needs William Pfaff, Japan Times, May 16, 2014
   

There have been few substantial policy-based statements in the BLP/N thread, and none supports his position, while at least three editors support the characterization of Kagan as a neoconservative, including @Joe Bodacious:[275], and @Binksternet:[276] aside from me. Nonetheless, VM seems inclined to continually revert the material on false grounds.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:50, 11:07 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This damn thing is already at WP:BLPN [277]. You'll note that Ubikwit's position is not receiving much support there. He appears to believe that if he posts long winded comments there in support of his position then that is enough to restore crap material to a BLP. It's hard to see how Binksternet's comment support his position and other editors such as Cullen and Iselilja point out problems with the reasoning. Joe Bodacious did not disagree (as soon as he realized that BLP applies to some other articles he's interested in).

It's also extremely misleading to pretend that this is about just labeling Kagan as a "neoconservative" (a designation he rejects). The edit under dispute also has a whole bunch of off topic stuff that simply doesn't belong in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, 1+1=2, not 3. But anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This likely only belongs at WP:BLP/N but critiques that a person is not what he says he is are a tad contentious, and this material places excessive reliance on editorial columns. The essence is "He is a neocon, though he denies it. He admits his friends are Straussians, though he denies being one. He said a person who denies being something, is one. The section is a mass of contradictory of "Everyone says and he denies" argumentation which, if it belongs in the BLP, needs massive attribution of the opinions, and should not be laid out in "He is A but denies it" style. The bit about "false recourse to BLP" is an extremely disturbing argument to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This posting relates to conduct as much as BLP policy, with which false recourse and misrepresentations are being made.

In your post, you neglect to note that the text in the articles has, for more than two years, assigned a degree of attribution to the sources characterizing Kagan as a neoconservative. It is not even the case that "The essence is "He is a neocon...".

1. Kagan has been described as a neoconservative foreign-policy theorist, although Kagan has adamantly rejected being labeled as a "neoconservative". [278]
2. Because of his association with PNAC and his early endorsement of the Iraq War, Kagan is widely considered a neoconservativeforeign-policy theorist. Kagan rejects that label, however, now preferring to call himself a realist. [279]
   

I'd also like to know what provisions in the BLP policy support the assertion that "critiques that a person is not what he says he is are a tad contentious" is relevant to articles on public figures?

Syndicated columnists like William Pfaff are still describing Kagan in these terms, and in association with the PNAC, while the other sources go back as far as 2008.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Clue: "Although" is a "word to avoid" for good reason.

That an article has not complied with WP:BLP for two years is not a reason at all to keep it being non-compliant.

Accusing an outside party of " false recourse and misrepresentations" is not really all that likely to impress others.

When one says "They call him 'A' although he denies it" means there is contention about a claim.

A claim about which there is contention is a contentious claim. I wot not how anyone could argue otherwise.

And, amazingly enough, a "syndicated columnist" generally writes opinions -- which I had thunk was reasonably clear, and their opinions should be cited as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You just asserted here that the article does no comply with BLP: prove it and gain consensus for removal of the material that has been in consensus for more than two years.

Unless you have actual policy-based arguments to proffer, you are engaging in something akin to WP:SOAPBOXING in relation to your personal sentiments about the way Wikipedia should be organized.

VM has now reverted two editors that have restored the consensus version today. This seems like an attempt to WP:RGW on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

FYI, the Foreign Affairs article characterizes Kagan as

the chief foreign policy theorist of the neoconservative movement

etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, Ubikwit. First, somebody explaining WP:BLP policy to you - in the face of your repeated assertions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - is NOT soap boxing. Second, it is a gross mis-characterization that borders on outright lying to claim that the version with the BLP violations is the "consensus version" when several people have pointed out their objections, here, on BLPN and the article itself.

Let me also give you a piece of advice - edit-warring on a BLP to restore contentious materials is a very bad idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Btw, that Foreign Affairs article goes on to say that "neoconservative" is not an accurate designation for Kagan, but rather "realist" (whatever that is).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

VM continues to be disruptive, starting this thread on my talk page User_talk:Ubikwit#Kagan_-_relevant_portions_of_BLP_policy, and further ignoring the growing consensus on the BLP/N thread[280],as perUser:Nomoskedasticity(with perhaps one minor adjustment to the text), reverting the consensus text yet again[281].

Note that in spite of the assertion that VM has

explained" BLP policy to me - in the face of [my} repeated assertions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

, his post on my talk page was his first attempt to justify the reverts and other statements vis-a-vis a policy based rationale.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I was obviously referring to Collect explaining BLP to you, which you then, strangely, called "SOAPBOXING". And sorry, but posting to your talk page the relevant parts of BLP policy is not "disruptive" (can you please just drop the irritating WP:BATTLEGROUND rhetoric?). Of course you can remove from your talk page if you want, that's your business, but you can't say that you haven't been notified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Whitewashing Edward Furlong

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

---

Hide what is in general unhelpful ranting

User:Binksternet had been consistently lurking the Edward Furlong bio-article, & dedicatedly removing ANY new additions that might be seen as "unfavourable"; using any flimsy "rationale", or none at all... the user has also attempted to remove "established" material on the same basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=history the material in question is not "controversial" or "unsubstantiated rumours"; these are ESTABLISHED FACTS, WIDELY REPORTED, & IN THE PUBLIC RECORD (arrests, police incidents, etc.). AND the user has even taken it upon themselves to "close" talkpage discussions, & delete comments critical of their actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_Furlong https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Furlong&action=history "close discussion" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Furlong&diff=564842059&oldid=564798406 "deletion" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Furlong&diff=588430137&oldid=588423922 (now, the 2nd comment deleted by binksternet MIGHT be seen as "defamatory" to the subject of the article under blp-rules, or it might be seen as "opinion", BUT the first deleted comment, critical of user actions, is clearly legitimate discourse, & hey presto, it's GONE! ^__^) the user's actions on this article have been an ongoing pattern, with considerable history; i have interacted with the person in the past, & warned them to discontinue this action. they have chosen to continue it. it is no longer possible to "AGF" with binksternet's activity here. i do not know if this person is a paid pr-hack, a deranged fan, or simply someone with a demented misunderstanding of blp rules (such as they are... ); but whatever the story, & whatever the merits of their other contributions @ wp/en, they should be BANNED from working on this particular article, & any others where they have shown a similar pattern of behaviour. the user should also be permanently barred from seeking adminship, based on their track record of poor judgement in the mis-use of their existing powers. Lx 121 (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Wow, you had my attention until you resorted to personal attacks that will likely just get you blocked the panda ₯’ 08:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC) HELLO; clarification please? what part of my above complaint is factually untrue, unreasonable, or unfounded? Lx 121 (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I'm deranged? Gee whiz. Binksternet (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC) actually, i have no idea what your problem is, AND I DONT CARE, but your actions on the furlong bio are unacceptable Lx 121 (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC) SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL rmv photo & start spurious DR @ commons https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&oldid=609051022 rmv WIDELY REPORTED incident https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=592066866&oldid=592059246 rmv widely reported b/g info (dating back to his T2 days, for pity's sake!) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=586716742&oldid=586709824 previous removal of widely reported bg info dating back to T2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=585793225&oldid=585792077 & again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=585791822&oldid=585791619 MASSIVE whitewash of public knowledge events & info https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=585674193&oldid=585341119 & again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=565702556&oldid=565701830 & just for good measure, here he is pettifogging over a cite; apparently court documents are not a "reliable source" for the subject's name https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=561367679&oldid=561267654 this is NOT about "making the article better", & it's not about using quality refs; this user is consistently removing unfavourable material, just because it is unfavourable material. that's NOT "following blp policy". Lx 121 (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Firstly, describing other editors as "deranged" is not acceptable, so knock that off. Secondly, the "additions" that you've made to the article seem to consist largely of negative information and a police mugshot, sourced largely to gossip blogs and the like. This is also not acceptable, and doubly so on a BLP. If you want to make these additions, then make a case for it on the article talk page before complaining here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC). firstly: every single incident is FACTUALLY DOCUMENTED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE & was WIDELY REPORTED; to anyone familiar with the subject, these are common knowledge. secondly: i'm NOT the only (or even the MAIN) person making these additions, this user has REPEATEDLY shut down other, less-experienced user's contributions to the article. (both points which you would know, if you had READ my above complaint, & checked the links... i invite you to re-read the material MORE CAREFULLY, before commenting further.) third: this IS NOT "niceapedia". now matter how messed up the current blp rules may be, we still REPORT FACTS. it doesn't matter if those facts are "nice" or not, it only matters if they are TRUE & VERIFIABLE. fourth: i didn't actually "call" this user anything, my exact words were "i do not know if this user is".... & as i stated further down the conversation I DO NOT CARE what the user's motives are; THEIR ACTIONS ARE UNACCEPTABLE this user has been "camped out" on the article FOR MONTHS, shutting down any new edits containing unfavourable material, using spurious justifications, or none at all. ...as documented in the links above, which you clearly did not examine carefully enough. & finally, fifth: i am SHOUTING, because i have very carefully outlined, & documented the problems above, & you have quite clearly IGNORED all of this, in composing your reply. cheers, Lx 121 (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Yep, having looked through the diffs, Lankiveil has got it about right. Lx121, you don't seem to have a good understanding of BLP. The shouting doesn't dissuade from that impression. Be careful of WP:BOOMERANG. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC) ok, if you wish to claim that, please CITE EXAMPLES; because what i see is the SYSTEMATIC REMOVAL OF UNFAVOURABLE MATERIAL. & that is not "blp"; no matter how messed up the current rules are. i will repeat for the 3rd, or 5th, or whatever number it is time: ALL OF THIS MATERIAL ABOUT THE SUBJECT (removed by user:binksternet) IS WIDELY REPORTED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE NONE of it is "CONTROVERSIAL". THE FACTUALITY IS NOT IN DISPUTE. the user has been REMOVING unfavourable material for SPURIOUS REASONS, as CLEARLY demonstrated in the edit histories. not to mention SHUTTING DOWN DISSENT on the article's talk page. is there some part of this that is difficult to understand? is there some point at which this process is actually going to EXAMINE the evidence, & consider the complaint, or are we going to keep talking about my alleged "name-calling"? is wikipedia really this broken!? o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I don't know, but I find the presentation of your posts makes them pretty much unreadable and also makes me disinclined to take them seriously. DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC) seems to work about as well as anything else on here; please see point #5 in my previous reply to your previous comment. with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC) WP:CONSENSUS trumps fact - for example, consensus typically is that arrests aren't important until conviction. Until that point, it's mere WP:UNDUE. This is a content dispute that should have used the WP:BRD process on the article talkpage - however, what makes this one different is the profound personal attacks by the OP in this thread. Not the wisest plan to come here, wrongly complain, and prove yourself block-worthy in the process the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC) "WP:CONSENSUS trumps fact" "consensus typically is that arrests aren't important until conviction" EXCUSE ME, but when did ^THAT^ become wp!? because, i seem to have missed the vote on that one.... i know blp is broken. i know blp is VERY broken. but DEAR GOD!? Lx 121 (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Best way to prove your points on AN/I: shouting in ALLCAPS. '"NOT!"' Doc talk 11:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC) as i said above "it seems to work about as well as anything else does, here." i started off "nice". i laid out my case, presented the evidence. that got me a long tangential discussion of "name-calling", & pretty much ignored the subject of the complaint. i added more direct links; that got me a comment from someone who clearly skimmed the comments, without reading carefully, & a couple of comments from people who did not examine the diffs carefully enough and/or adhere to the view that "blp" is about "being nice", & verified facts don't really matter! ^__^ i already knew that the complaints process on here is just about useless, at least as an objective, impartial procedure, & that blp is a godawful mess of rulescruft. but if things are THIS bad; where blp whitewash is acceptable, & 3R (see below) is a joke, then it's time to give up. maybe i'll come back, when the system crashes, & the rules reset. because if you are SERIOUSLY telling me that this is the standard now, for blp; or that the rules won't be enforced because i didn't format this "nicely", & nobody can be bother to actually READ, FACT-CHECK, & ACT, then i can find other things to do with my time.... Lx 121 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC) bzzzzzzzzttt Wrong, you did not start out "nice". The section title includes "whitewashing", which is negative. In your original post, you referred to someone as a "paid pr-hack, a deranged fan, or simply someone with a demented misunderstanding of blp rules", which is a blockable personal attack. You ALSO know that ANI does not deal with content disputes, especially when you have not followed the WP:DR processes that are available to you. You also prove timem and time again that not only is it you who misunderstands our core policies such as BLP, but that you a) have a WP:BATTLE mentality, are prone to personal attacks, and perhaps are the one who needs to be blocked. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC) you know, you have commented 3x in this discussion, without ONCE addressing the substance of my complaint. to deconstruct your above comment, into its component sections: "The section title includes "whitewashing", which is negative." -- do you have an alternative, preferred term, for an editor SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVING UNFAVOURABLE INFO from a bio-article? because, the last time i checked, "whitewashing" was "ok". "your original post, you referred to someone as" -- actually, what i said was "i do not know if this person is...". i later said "& i don't care (what their motives are)". which is not actually a direct attack; it's also at least ~5000 WORDS AGO in this discussion. but if it really bothers you, then i am willing to retract the comment & apologize for it; IF that means that you will actually focus on the core issues of the complaint. 'ANI does not deal with content disputes' -- THIS IS NOT ABOUT A CONTENT DISPUTE. this is about a USER, who has systematically "camped out" on an article FOR MONTHS, shutting down ANYONE who added unfavourable material. most of whom are noobs, or at least noob-ish, & don't have the wp know-how to call him on it. (i have ALREADY made this same point REPEATEDLY in this discussion; & you wonder why i am "shouting"?) "You also prove timem and time again that not only is it you who misunderstands our core policies such as BLP, but that you a) have a WP:BATTLE mentality, are prone to personal attacks, and perhaps are the one who needs to be blocked." -- doesn't this come AWFULLY CLOSE to a "personal attack"? because it seems that way to me. you are using the direct pronoun, you are using the accusative form, & you are calling me "names"; attacking my motives, saying that i have a "battle mentality". "perhaps are the one who needs to be blocked" -- if you really think that you can get a block of me approved via the entire review & appeals process, then go for it. i don't really need to be @ wm all that "badly" i'm only a user who's been here since the mid 2000s, with a few thousand edits on wp/en, & tens of thousands of edits @ commons (& a smattering elsewhere). i can find other things to do with my time, & when you are finished breaking wikipedia, MAYBE i'll come back. it's not like you guys have a problem with declining numbers of editors... oh, wait. NOW; unless there are any substantive new developments, i'm DONE with this discussion. i have laid out my case, & i have provided the evidence. i've said EVERYTHING that needs to be said, in regards to the merits of my case, thus far. apparently, i have been wasting my time in doing so, & i choose to waste no more of it. user:binksternet is now in violation of BOTH Whitewash_(censorship), & 3R. if nobody is going to do anything about that, then FINE; i'm done with blp, & i won't hold my breath waiting for ani to start being useful anytime soon either i'm not going to quit wikipedia; i'm just going to wait things out until it gets less broken. i've already reduced my activity here significantly, & you should expect more of less from me, from now on. good luck with your board, let me know if it starts working, or if you ever decide to actually DO anything about the user problems i have mentioned, explained, & documented. Lx 121 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC) FOLLOW-UP & user:binksternet JUST DID IT AGAIN! TWICE which i believe is a 3R violation, on top of everything else (if the "rules" actually matter at all, here?) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=609505273&oldid=609493219 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=609512753&oldid=609512391 RE: rmv photo, for spurious reasons. "(Undid revision 609493219 by Lx 121 (talk) revert per BLP... the image does not meet California laws)" not only is that assertion UNTRUE, IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE. the photo would certainly qualify as "fair use", even if it wasn't pd-gov.cali, which, according to commons current policy, it IS. seriously, is there any point in my complaining about this, other than to have it "on the record"? or should i just write off blp-rules abuse/misuse as a lost cause, & wait for the system to crash & reset? Lx 121 (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC) He's done it twice today. That's not even 3 reverts. His last revert was 3 days ago. Clearly no violation of 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC) read the rules more closely; you're arguing a technicality. circumvention by watching the clock is STILL A VIOLATION. so is using the rule "tactically". if i revert him now , then i'd be the "violator"; if you're saying all i need to do is wait a couple of days, to be in the clear, then sweet. but, no? Lx 121 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC) not to mention the fact that the rationale he's using to remove the picture is wp:bullshit. Lx 121 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 3 deletes than a 4th shortly outside 24 hours is blockable. 3 deletes in more than 72 hours would rarely be blockable. If you deleted today again you would be a 3RR, so not a violation. So far I see this as a content dispute with possible BLP issues. I see you were complaining about the article at least as early as last December (in all caps) but never took up Binksternet's suggestion of dispute resolution. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I can't understand the rationale for removing the image. In fact it's a lot clearer than the current goofy-looking thing in the infobox, which distorts his features. It's not even obviously a police "mugshot". Since this person is quite well known for having been repeatedly arrested it seems appropriate to the section, with the added advantage that it gives you some idea of what he looks like, unlike the lede image. Whether or not one image rather than another should be used is a content question, but the claims that it somehow violates BLP policy and "does not meet California laws" seem potentially ANI issues unless they can be shown to have some basis in policy. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC) exeunt (repeated from above) NOW; unless there are any substantive new developments, i'm DONE with this discussion (barring correction of errors in my own comments). i have laid out my case, & i have provided the evidence. i've said EVERYTHING that needs to be said, in regards to the merits of this case, thus far. apparently, i have been wasting my time in doing so, & i choose to waste no more of it. user:binksternet is now in violation of BOTH Whitewash_(censorship), & 3R. if nobody is going to do anything about that, then FINE; i'm done with blp, & i won't hold my breath waiting for ani to start being useful anytime soon either. i'm not going to quit wikipedia; i'm just going to wait things out until it gets less broken. i've already reduced my activity here significantly, & you should expect more of less from me, from now on. good luck with your notice-board, let me know if it starts working; or if you ever decide to actually DO anything about the user problems i have mentioned, explained, & documented. i probably won't be watching closely anymore, so somebody let me know if anything interesting happens here? & don't expect a response for at least 24 hours. good luck with all that, Lx 121 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Lx, look briefly at this, I think you protest too much here. (Your insistence on double spacing, use new lines all the time and such makes it very hard to read, as does the ranting.) I have no idea if Bink is correct in his assertions, but the faith looks fine in the links you provided. The image is up for deletion as it is, so it will be hashed out there. As it is a BLP, we tend to err on the conservative side, including when it comes to WP:UNDUE and media licensing. The place to debate that is at the talk page, and failing that, WP:DRN. Maybe even WP:BLPN. He has made good faith technical claims as to why the image can't be included, why it is a copyright violation, and he has used the process to nominate it for deletion, per policy. You have responded by calling him deranged (which I find a bit ironic, but I digress...) and questioning his motives, without addressing the technical merits. What I see above is a lot of hyperbole, to the level that you are almost begging to get blocked yourself, and if the attacks and unsubstantiated claims don't cease, that is exactly what will happen. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Any potential range block to stop the troll?

• 41.111.112.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.104.40.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 197.202.238.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 197.202.174.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.114.94.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.73.129.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 123.239.118.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.62.228.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Is there any chance theres a range that would block this troll without freezing out half the internet? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

and another-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• and 205.217.255.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --David Biddulph (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any commonality between the IPs... all over the place geographically, none seem to be proxies. Off-wiki coordination? Sailsbystars (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for checking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There've been more trolls, now on IPv6, do you want me to list them here? --Lixxx235 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Consider watching ...Theredpenofdoom.

Ever thus to trolls. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Consider watching this user (Theredpenofdoom) . He has been vandalayizing the wikipedia pages and is doing disruptive editing. The below is his proof and also you can find through his talk page. I ask you to kindly block this user permanently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheRedPenOfDoom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.62.228.141 (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Struck as confirmed sock of blocked user --Lixxx235 (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC) This is an impersonator account. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing on Race and Intelligence

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

---

There are various viewpoints on the subject of performance differences between racial groups. Some claim the differences are due to discrimination, or systemic disadvantage, while others claim the differences can be explained by genetics, and that systemic disadvantage is negligible or non-existent, going as far as claiming that minorities experience a performance boosting advantage relative to what they would experience outside Western nations. Looking through the archives it is clear that editors AndyTheGrump and ArtifexMayhem are well aware of these sources. They wish to state in Wikipedia's voice that minorities are systemically disadvantaged, rather than supposedly disadvantaged. Wikipedia cannot state systemic disadvantage as fact, it is an opinion. Clearly these editors are pushing a POV, and making life difficult for editors on the talk page who promote neutral reporting, by demanding sources which they know exist. Can they be asked to collaborate rather than play silly dishonest games? BeauPhenomene (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above contributor, along with Eracekat (talk · contribs), is attempting to replace a sourced statement concerning systemic disadvantage (relating to minorities including African Americans, but discussing a more general case) with a weasel-worded reference to 'supposed disadvantage', while citing no sources whatsoever for any suggestion that such disadvantage does not exist. A Clear and unambiguous attempt to spin the article, based on nothing but personal opinions, and in User:Eracekat's case a generous dollop of ill-thought-out original research. As the talk page discussion makes clear. [282] multiple contributors have tried and failed to explain policy on the need for sourcing, to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump knows the sources exist. Why is he wasting everybody's time? BeauPhenomene (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC) (comment actually posted by 98.176.2.34, 08:26, May 19, 2014) [Note: the IP is cut-and-paste quoting BeauPhenomene here. RF 17:37, 19 May 2014]

Yours might be a rhetorical question, but what the heck. I would suggest that in an homologous sense it is for the same reason that one person's thinking is said to have "evolved" but the other person's thinking is characterized as being a "flip flop" or tergiversation. I personally prefer "tergiversation" because "flip flop" might inadvertently be comprehended as a particular type of footwear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that yet again, BeauPhenomene fails to cite a source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree, Andy (if I may be so bold), asseveration without demonstration is worthless. If a claim is made it must be backed with the production of verifiable fact in form of reliable sources (for purposes of Wikipedia). I seem to be having trouble with indentation and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• At issue is this edit with the change: "A large number of studies have shown that systemicallysupposedly disadvantaged minorities" (with two other "supposedly"). Our opinions on "systemically" vs. "supposedly" are not relevant—the only consideration is whether "systemically" is supported by the provided references. It would also help to read the refs to see what wording they felt was justified. Another issue is that the word "supposedly" is a standard editorial comment to suggest that a claim is false. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As an alternative I suggested to simply scrap the paragraph due to it being non-verified (in addition to non neutral). I have read some of the references and they do not serve to support the stated claim because they also are opinionated. References have to be reliable, they cannot themselves simply state opinions. I have clearly stated the fact that affirmative action policies are the exact opposite of what the paragraph claims, they give and advantage, yet this is simply being ignored. How can a policy that has been around for decades and which leads to in some cases to 3 times as many African Americans than Asian Americans being accepted to college (with the same qualification) simply be ignored as not relevant. It is clear evidence against the disadvantage hypothesis, how could it not be?Eracekat (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that yet again, Eracekat is basing arguments on original research - though 'research' is actually perhaps not the best word to describe this ill-though-out collection of non sequiturs. As I have already pointed out, the existence of affirmative action does not preclude the existence of systemic disadvantage. And of course, the article isn't just about the U.S. anyway - the source cited makes it entirely clear that it is referring to a more general case, of which African Americans are just one example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A brand new red linked single purpose account on a topic which is notorious for repeated and constant long term sock puppetry even by the very low standards of Wikipedia in general... remind me again, why are we paying attention to this? Someone just found some extra spare time in their couch and is not sure how to properly waste it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Missed this discussion. I agree, it's a waste of time and I believe that BeauPhenomene is most likely a sock. The history of this article makes me unwilling to offer good faith. I also note that Eracekat has never edited a relevant article - he arrives here and then suddenly a new editor shows up to support him? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If the "new editor" refers to me (slips off the protection of a very nice, if I don't say so myself, tin-foil hat to enter paranoia mode so as to type what precedes this rather lengthy parenthetical aside). No, I know nothing of BeauPhenomene. And I would remind those who may be interested--"post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is fallacious reasoning. Or, rather, "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" as more appropriate (I think). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And to settle the sock question I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eracekat - it is possible there is no socking here and thus I think this needs to be determined. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock or not, I think there is a severe problem with WP:COMPETENCE here. As far as I can tell, Eracekat has a hard time understanding WP:V and WP:NOR. On the one side we have published academic sources, on the other we have an idiosyncratic straw man and some questionable original reasoning trying to knock it down. Eracekat, BeauPhenomene, I strongly suggest you drop the stick and step back from the dead horse before a boomerang hits you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

BeauPhenomene was blocked earlier today (not by me). Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping on your toes, User:John, but I have overriden your block to make it indefinite. I think the reason is pretty self-evident and stands by itself irrespective of the sock/meatpuppetry argument. NW (Talk) 17:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly ok, NW, I should probably have indeffed myself. --John (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary

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

---

It's been mentioned here already in the past week, but could admins please keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc de BinaryWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary as the end of the discussion nears? There is all sorts going on there; CoI editing, multiple SPAs, lots of quacking like sockpuppets, editors making multiple !votes, editors making changes to other editors' !votes... GoldenRing (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary. The other AfD was closed last year. What a mess though. Number 57 13:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the correction. Fixed above. GoldenRing (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The previous AFD discussion should be listed on that AFD page, if they are indeed about the same article the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. The last discussion was WP:Articles for deletion/Banc de Binary from January 2013, when Banc de Binary was spelled with lowercase 'de'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got to laugh when the SPAs from the actual company itself are !voting to delete the article. They put it up and then found out that the article can't exist as a whitewash, but must accurately represent the (dodgy) history of the company. Unlucky. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean un LUC ky? ;) -- Atama頭 22:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There was an advertisement in the last few days on Freelancer asking for help deleting an article - I wasn't sure if it was this one, but I wouldn't be surprised. - Bilby (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Heh... this article was originally created by Wiki-PR. It's a really great example of why it's a bad idea to pay for an article to be created about your company. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Closed it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Suzannah Lipscomb

Over the last year or so the User:TheRedPenOfDoom has repeatedly disrupted this page such that it is now a shadow of its former self. There is now a discussion to delete the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzannah_Lipscomb. He started the disruption by by constantly inserting comments about the subject's marriage that could not be supported by appropriate references, despite being asked not to as the subject was separated. He then went on to remove anything that was referenced from either the subject's own webpage or her employers. The accusation of WP: BLUDGEON has been made, although not naming this user specifically, but it is clear that is who it is aimed at. The user's approach is often aggressive and anyone who writes on the comments page regarding the deletion is put down. It has now come to the point where the only positive way forward would be to delete the subject's page, diminishing her and allowing the bully to have won.MdeBohun (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, the OP has made no edits not on the subject of Suzannah Lipscomb. In addition, they have not notified TRPoD of this discussion, as is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this then if not notification: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit] Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible bullying[1] incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.MdeBohun (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

written on and copied from User:TheRedPenOfDoom user page.

Thank you also The Bushranger for pointing out that I've made no edits elsewhere. I don't deny this, I've tried to keep the page up to date and relevant. All was fine until User:TheRedPenOfDoom started his repeated disruption, as he seems to have done to any other pages.MdeBohun (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, Afd is on going, I don't think it is right to open same discussion on multiple boards. OccultZone (Talk) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Even TRPoD has changed their !vote to keep following the hard work of someone other that the OP. You don't want an article deleted? Fricking fix it. I'll say, however, that if User:MdeBohun keeps up their attacks and WP:BATTLE behaviour, they're going to very quickly find themself blocked the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, Suzannah Lipscomb itself could use some eyes, re potential violations of BLP, editwarring, etc. Another SPA, Lw1982 (talk · contribs) (already previously blocked for editwarring there}, has now taken to inexplicably removing the title of the subject's PhD. dissertation referenced to two highly reliable sources. They are currently on their 4th revert of two different editors [283], [284], [285], [286] [287] and their responses so far have not been encouraging. See their talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And now a 6th revert, editing as an IP [288] to avoid a 3RR block. Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

voceditenore is adding unnecessary details about the thesis. Who care what the title was, just that it was awarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lw1982 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant to the person's subject-expertise, which is part of the point of a biography of an academic. More to the point, why do you care so much that you want to remove it? Paul B (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does the person who keeps adding it care so much that they want to keep it in the article? How many other academics' pages state their thesis title? Shouldn't the page be focused on their professional career rather than their student life? (Lw1982 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

I refer you to the following Featured articles on academics, all of which state the name of the thesis in the articles: Edward Teller, Barbara McClintock, Hilary Putnam, James E. Boyd (scientist). There are many more. In any case, please continue this at Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• ...and I'll refer them to WP:BLOCK and WP:EW - just because you don't like it there, doesn't mean you get to keep removing it. Your reason is not one of the listed exceptions to being blocked the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• - are there users here that are above the law? User_talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves for example and redpenofdoom - User:TheRedPenOfDoom attacked this person - Suzannah Lipscomb a living person with a wikia story because he didn't like it that a comment that she was married was removed - WP:BLP is clearly a problem here, eatshootsandleaves is supporting redpenofdooms contributions, well rather deletions to the life story just wants to block the ass off any user who is related, the user he should be looking at blocking is User:TheRedPenOfDoom - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• In detail - looking at his history - and wikia contributions - User_talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves should not be threatening to block any user - Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, what happens when you make broad overreaching statements at ANI is that your commentary is generally discounted as hyperbole, as will likely be the case here. Present your concerns concisely and with specific diffs that back each of your claims, and be prepared to walk away if the reviewing admins and editors disagree with your interpretation of events or your desired outcome. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

my objective was to remove the User:TheRedPenOfDoom control over the article Suzannah_Lipscomb and to get new editors input - desired outcome? this has been massively achieved - User_talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves threats are worthless - as are yours ponyo Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your response to my advice is to make more accusations flung without any actual difs to support them? Would you care to show me exactly where I threatened you? You won't be able to because it never happened, and in making such flippant remarks you've shown the quality of your input here. You can continue to respond, but I won't be reading it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mosfetfaser Would you care to explain your comment, and try to keep it within the realms of Wikipedia and not Wikia (I don't believe I have ever edited anything at Wikia). I have never edited the article in question with either of my 2 accounts. My role in this discussion is solely as an admin on this project, and the thrust of my argument surrounds the removal of a dissertation title from an article - so many times that the person has violated both our edit-warring and WP:3RR policies. Edit-warring is a bad thing - that's why there's even a noticeboard dedicated to it. the panda ₯’ 09:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Soz I wasn't clear. you said, "I'll say, however, that if User:MdeBohun keeps up their attacks and WP:BATTLE behaviour, they're going to very quickly find themself blocked" - User:MdeBohun had very legitimate concerns, it was this threat to block that I objected to Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not at all what you suggested by your statement, and you know it. Legitimate concerns or not, as the top of the page says, your own behaviour will also be taken into account. I provided a very polite, dispassionate, third-party warning. So, meh. the panda ₯’ 20:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, what are you talking about? EatsShootsAndLeaves (aka "the panda") has not edited the article at all, nor commented in the AfD. As an administrator, he was addressing my concerns over the edit-warring by Lw1982 to remove of the thesis title, and nothing more. Are you also aware that the editor in question, Lw1982, has now managed to insert the alleged married name of the subject into the article, despite their alleged concern to have information about the marriage removed? I know feelings are running high over that article, but really... Voceditenore (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed my opinion as the page is supposed to be unbiased about the subject's life and MdeBohun was using it to promote their acknowledged relative's interests and turn it into a promotional piece. (Lw1982 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

You tried to remove the title of her dissertation - which could easily make a reasonable user wonder if she actually wrote one - and keep adding the former married name she never publicly used, and you worry about another editor being biased? To me, your edits seem to be a clearly obvious attempt to introduce bias (ie. women are best judged not by their credentials but by whether they can catch and hold on to a man) into the article. --NellieBly (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NellieBly. I count 6 reverts via the IP & username. I see no promotion here. I see the page being changed a ridiculous amount of times for what looks like personal reasons. Thewho515 (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

'Woman are best judged not by their credentials but by whether they can catch and hold onto a man' what sort of statement is that? Please don't introduce feminist arguments into this. The 'Lawhead' addition to her name is backed up by a reliable source, the subject gave a talk at her old school and the school wrote up her name she used at the time. (Lw1982 (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

It's a statement that pretty accurately captures the effect of your edits, which serve to diminish the achievements of the article subject and shove the name of her soon-to-be-ex husband front and centre. Funny that. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, we live in the 21st century, people don't judge you on gender, nobody cares if you are male or female and there is no social injustice towards women in the UK. NellieBly obviously has issues, otherwise why bring some feminist nonsense into the discussion? For the record, I have not named her estranged husband, that was TheRedPenOfDoom (Lw1982 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

User:Player334455

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

---

Requesting blocking of Player334455 (talk · contribs), a vandalism-only account: from removing chunks of text with his 1st and 2nd edits to messing up the Athens article in a series of edits, a series of trolling edits at Pnyx including an arbitrary page move to an irrelevant name just yesterday, this account has done zero positive contributions. The user has been repeatedly warned at his talk page, but obviously doesn't care. Judging also by his userpage or what he does with his sandbox, he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Constantine ✍ 10:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done For future reference, the best place to report stuff like this is at Administrators' intrevention against vandalism (aka "WP:AIV"). Yunshui ^雲_水 10:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. Constantine ✍ 12:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Promoting Ugandan law firms

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

---

• Ray Clyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.217.235.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The named account and his IPs (I gave only one example, but it is quite a range of Ugandan IPs) are on a tear creating Ugandan law firm articles. All of them follow a similar format. Some of them get tagged and speedy deleted, but others still remain, no doubt because of the pace of their creation. I don't feel comfortable taking action unilaterally, which is why I brought it here. (I'm not notifying the IP - it's fairly clear the IPs are either Clyde or a cohort.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Block them indefinitely, and see if they show any interest in returning properly, with an encyclopedic goal. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are articles about Ugandan organisations or Ugandan individuals, like for example Rose Namayanja who is a member of the Ugandan Cabinet, or Henry Musasizi who is (apparently) an MP in that country, not an encyclopedic goal? I've not seen the deleted articles for obvious reasons, but these stand out even at a first glance.

I've never seen a suggestion for an indefinite block for someone creating a lot of articles about, say, English bishops or members of the FTSE 250.

I'm also sceptical of the possibility of a promotional purpose behind an account creating articles for all the organisations in a particular field. Some law firm has paid him to create articles about their competitors? Or what? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but a bar association or national chamber of commerce would absolutely benefit from that sort of listing. Again, not saying that's what's happening, but it's entirely plausible. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

True, but the account is also creating articles about politicians who are not (and have never been) lawyers... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I ran into a similar account who was very active creating many pages and categories of individuals of their country, mostly the people were in the entertainment and business fields. But it seemed to be more about raising the profile of the country on Wikipedia out of national pride rather than paid editing or some WP:COI. I'm sure this happens all of the time on WP but on a smaller scale. As long as the articles stand the tests of notability and WP:RS, I don't see a big problem. If there are dozens of poorly written articles, than action should be taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as with vandals, an account may be disruptive a certain percentage of the time and not disruptive some of the time. Here, many of the articles are being speedily deleted, which means that they don't even satisfy the criteria, let alone notability guidelines, at least in the view of the deleting administrator. There's also a certain amount of dishonesty here in the way the articles are drafted, referenced, and laid out to make them look more like "real articles" than they really are. There are also blatant misrepresentations. Take, for example List of law firms in Uganda. Before I edited the article, it looked like this. it had a section called Ugandan law firms that consisted entirely of redlinked articles, probably because all of them were speedy deleted. That in and of itself might have been excusable but it also had a list of "International law firms in Uganda" with 19 listed. I went through each firm's article and website (tedious) and, except for three firms, the others did not have offices in Uganda. I even left in DLA Piper, although it didn't really have an office in Uganda, it had a relationship with another firm with an office in Uganda. Some of the listed firms were African firms that were not international, although I didn't remove any on that basis. I then tagged it as an A7 with an explanation of what I'd done on the talk page. DGG declined it, not the first time he and I disagree on this sort of thing (his prerogative, of course). Anyway, if the consensus is to leave the editor alone, I'll stop patrolling him, his IPs, and his crappy articles. I'm persuaded that this is a disruptive editor, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• What Bbb says. I looked at the user's other articles, and don't see notability problems there--but those law firms, they were nothing more than directory entries. That's disruptive, pure and simple. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So it strikes me that cultivating this editor might be a good task for WP:CSB, given an interest in creating articles on Ugandan topics is something we can only use more of. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Seems like the editor is trying to work with Wikipedia, and is making a good effort, but is desperately trying to get the pages to stay and be "notable" to someone who's likely unfamiliar with the country. Many of them are harsher reactions which create an even more critical response. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, that's fine, Mendaliv--but what prompted my response here (and no doubt Bbb's report) is the IP editing. So that needs to be mentioned by any nurturer as well. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Be fair, as well: A LOT of new articles get deleted regardless of their merit as a subject, because administrators tend to judge very quickly as the creation rate is high. I remember back on Not the Wikipedia Weekly, Episode 34, where we were group-making an article, and had it deleted half-way through, despite a couple basic sources and a note saying we were about to work on it as a collaborative edit right then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to create an article. It's hard to create an article that doesn't get deleted within a week of its creation. But along with a few valid articles that are unfortunately deleted, I'm sure a lot of junk gets cleared out through the process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Filling in obvious gaps in our coverage of country should be encouraged. It's a perfectly reasonable activity for anyone interested in that aspect of the country's life (for example in this case, a law student). There are two inevitable pitfalls we have to help people around : the likelihood the the writing will not conform to our standards, and the tendency to include people or things whose notability is not obvious. It would seem self-apparently wise to start with one or two articles on the most notable and get feedback, but this strategy seems to be rather uncommon. It's our job as admins not just to spot the deficient articles, but to offer the necessary advice, which is best done my personalized messages, not templates. None of us do it all the time: I try to do it, but often the best I can manage is try to spot [patterns, but when it is usually too late. We have enough admins, but we need more to participate in the work of screening new articles--and to do it properly when they're doing it. A reviewer of NPP or AfD who confines themselves to dropping templates is easy to mistake for a robot.

Given the pressure of the umber of articles and drafts to review, we all make mistakes. But it's not quite as bad as Liz seems to think. I know my error rate is under 5% for articles, and under 10% for the often much more ambiguous afcs. At present, at least 3/4 of the articles submitted in NPP stay in WP, though perhaps 10% of them shouldn't. At AfC the results are much more disappointing. Only about 10% of the articles are either accepted, or ever get improved and then accepted. But this is the fault of first , the reviewers who decline articles that would pass afd, and second, our inability to actually follow through are persuade people to make the improvements--probably about 1/3 or 1/2 of the articles are potentially acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(corrected a template above) Your comments are valuable, but I'd like to see some evidence of your stats, e.g., "1/3 or 1/2 of the articles are potentially acceptable" (by whose standards?). I also think that you fail to take into account those users whose motives are not to improve the encyclopedia but to promote, and the distinct possibility that that is the case with this user (who has not edited since this topic was opened) and his use of IP addresses as if they are other users. I don't say any of this to push for sanctions at this point. If someone is willing to mentor the user, I'm all for giving them a chance to improve their skills.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats on user talk

Using STiki I restored content (15:47, 18 May 2014) that had been removed (15:40, 18 May 2014) with the edit summary, "The text online was written by people who did not know the facts and the references to Davy O'List is Slander and Deformation." and included deleting references and content with citations. There followed two unsigned posts (from IP: 80.0.21.1) to my talk page 15:59, 20 May 2014 and 16:03, 20 May 2014 which contain legal threats (but not a link to indicate what the poster is even talking about). NLT warning given 22:07, 20 May 2014 and 23:40, 20 May 2014. This IP is apparently claiming to be David O'List, odd as there is a registered account User:Davy O'List. Doesn't much matter to me, but the legal threats are inapropriate and display a poor understanding of how WP works. Another editor has done some work on the article I believe the op was referring to, The Nice, and has toned down and balanced the content which may have been an issue for the op. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, those are clear legal threats. Blockable per WP:NLT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an uptick on these claims that one reference or another is engaging in defamation and that using said sources would expose WikiMedia to a lawsuit. Perhaps these individuals should be pointed to a recent case where an Appellate Court threw out such and argument. "No liability for linking to — and praising — allegedly defamatory article" —Farix (t | c) 11:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The content dispute that triggered this legal threat, by the way, seems to be under discussion at WP:BLPN#The Nice. 80.0.21.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not been blocked, but has also not edited since the legal threat was made. User:Davy O'List, who may be associated with the IP has not edited since April. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The claims about personality rights are irrelevant, since Wikipedia (or the WMF) are not profiting from the use of the person's "image". That said, there is a book about the band. A member of the band doesn't like it, fine. I assume that's common. Let's get in some counter claims in, even primary. Let's word the material differently, give it less weight, etc. But so far I see no discussion with them at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine and all, absolutely. But to my understanding NLT doesn't give the credibility of the threat's grounds much consideration (and the threat was against not only Wikipedia but also MrBill3). While I usually advocate the stance that NLT doesn't cover a lot of situations it's often invoked to cover (though I believe WP:CIVILITY covers most of those others), I don't see how the IP's post to MrBill3's user talk can be interpreted as anything other than "I will sue". Here's the relevant language: "This article damages day by day and you are responsible for putting it back up. By law you need my consent to use my name, image and likeness but you don't have it. . . . I confirm Wikipedia and the contributors to this article do not have my consent to use my name. Wikepedia [sic] are not in the position to hold a trial online. Everyday [sic] this article appears on line becomes a separate charge." (emphasis and ellipses mine) I get that we shouldn't overlook legal threats, and that situations like these can sometimes be diffused with tact, but NLT is a bright-line rule. Or am I misunderstanding this situation? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems like we're also seeing more legal threats saying that using a logo on an article about a company requires prior permission. Or is that nothing new? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not a legal threat, it is. I'm just saying that's what people do when they feel frustrated that we only template them instead of trying to communicate and explain stuff to them. @Liz: Yeah, it's not uncommon for companies to write to OTRS claiming we are violating their copyrights by using their logos. They usually go away after we explain Fair use to them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My guess is it's a litigation tactic to create irrefutable evidence of actual notice of infringement, so as to make a finding of willful infringement (leading to enhanced damages) more likely. It's much like why people still put copyright notices on things despite it being unnecessary for the copyright to exist: better damages. It may also have some relevance to pretrial civil procedure. There are also fads in legal practice, both professional and amateur, like many sports, that get used without an understanding of the principles behind the action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Somebody tell the IP he's Davy O'List, remind him that Brian May called him "the legendary guitarist of the 'Wick" and cited him as a major influence, remind him John Peel has never called him "a waste of talent and electricity" unlike his bandmate, and "America" doesn't work without his guitar solo. I've toned down the article and if I can get hold of any other half decent source of The Nice, I'll tone it down some more. Don't overlook legal threats, people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I really wonder if this editor is David O'List because I don't see similar edits on his own article, just on the band article. Maybe just someone else who was once associated with the band, a journalist or fan. It doesn't make any difference regarding the WP:NLT but I wouldn't assume it is O'List. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you look at User talk:Davy O'List, you'll see a conversation from 2009 with Rodhullandemu where he confirmed the account was his, then a more recent complaint from April this year on exactly the same vein. I totally understand why he might complain like this - Immediate Records went bankrupt so he might well never have seen any decent royalties from his work with The Nice, one of his fans has overtaken him to become one of the biggest names in rock ever, he wants to keep going in the music business and reading unpleasant things from a quick google search isn't helping him. The quacking is so loud I need ear protectors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If the editor is not O'List whom is making the assertion that whose name, likeness etc. can't be used without permission and denying such permission? The point of this notice is to let editors know, legal threats have been made on my talk page. BTW I am not insisting on some particular action, whatever admins decide is fine by me. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock of PennySeven is asking to be banned

MonteDaCunca (talk · contribs) is obviously a sock of banned user PennySeven (talk · contribs), with the same obsessions and same type of disruptive activity. He's even gone off on admin Barek (who has shown remarkable forbearance),[289] in a way familiar to anyone who's interacted with PennySeven before. I've posted a report at SPI, but there's some delay in response. This sock has continued his disruptive activity and won't go away.[290] Since he is now asking to be banned,[291] can we get a quick block to stop the disruption? Thanks, LK (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I was joking. MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking to be banned.MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not disruptive. Lawrencekoo is: See the Hyperinflation article. MonteDaCunca (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. -- John Reaves 13:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Further request to remove talk page editing privileges due to continued talk page blanking: diff. --Pitke (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

One instance of blanking isn't "continued talk page blanking". Best to just ignore it. -- John Reaves 15:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)