Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

Centralized discussion
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages


Certified pages


General
Use of administrator privileges

Noticeboard archives


Contents

Blanket changes of English variants in violation of WP:ENGVAR[edit]

User:Jaguar has blanket changed the English variant on around 100 pages by script without any sort of justification. See his contributions. Changing the variety of English used without any justification, much less consensus, is in clear violation of WP:ENGVAR, the policy he himself quotes.

If he wishes to justify the blanket changes, it also seems more fitting to have a centralized discussion rather than a hundred separate ones (although I recognize that this is an unusual place for it). I have reported it here as such a staggering number of changes would be difficult to revert without a rollback tool. Oreo Priest talk 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For the Canadian articles I checked, at least, Jaguar does not appear to be changing the English variant so much as ensuring they consistently use EN-CA. I am not seeing anything problematic in those examples. Resolute 14:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Oreo, my justification is that all the articles I edited were either Commonwealth Realms, former British territories or any UK related product that used British spelling. Belize, for example, is a Commonwealth Realm and uses British English (there's no such thing as Belize English). I also edited Canadian related articles and implemented Canadian English into them (Ontario, Quebec, Totonto etc) so my reasons for this are 100% justified and correct? The policy I quote you mentioned is an automated edit summary provided by the script. Jaguar 14:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
In the case of Canada and the Commonwealth, I have no issues, and I should have been more clear about that. Many others are clearly not Commonwealth Realms, and they clearly have no strong national ties to the UK. Belgium, for example, is not only not in the Commonwealth, but the article has always been in US English, and consensus is to leave it like that, not that you checked. Other obvious examples, include Brazil, Russia, South Korea, YouTube, television and World War II. Not only is there no obvious case to be made for changing these, but you didn't even attempt to make the case. Oreo Priest talk 14:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
World War II has always been in British English, YouTube was a mistake and I admit that, television I'm not sure why, even though it ties with being invented in Scotland I guess? And the other countries have no consensus? There's no policy saying that they shouldn't be in any variant of English? To be honest I didn't think anyone would even mind - it's only a few characters of changes (colonize to colonise for example)? Jaguar 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is a very clear policy, it's WP:ENGVAR, the one you quoted yourself. I suppose you didn't read it at all if you thought changing the English variant was legitimate. I invite you to clean up your mess by reverting each and every one of your non-Commonwealth edits, and to begin a discussion about why it should be changed in the cases where you think it should be. Oreo Priest talk 14:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Some of the changes that you made do not seem to be supported by WP:ENGVAR. Most topics should stick with whichever version of English it was first written in. Only in cases where there are strong national ties is it appropriate to switch from one variety to the other. For example Belgium is not a topic with strong national ties to Britain and therefore would not use that variety of English if it was first written in American English. —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Since Belgium is famously "A country invented by the British to annoy the French" [1], perhaps UK English is preferable, and has the advantage that Belgium can now annoy the Americans too. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Oreo Priest, did you try to discuss this with Jaguar before bringing it here? From my limited review I can see no indication that you even tried. It is best to try to fix the problems between the two of you before complaining here. GB fan 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
GB fan, I did not, as explained in my initial post. I realize it is somewhat unconventional to begin here, but it seemed to be the most elegant solution. Oreo Priest talk 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jaguar: After looking only at the top of your editing history, I've reverted you at Italy and Argentina, where a search of the history established in both cases that the earliest identifiable English variant used was U.S., and there is no association with the UK that would warrant the use of British English. As others have said, this is part of the ENGVAR policy, and you should have familiarised yourself with the entirety of the policy before implementing a script. Also, I suspect you are unaware of Oxford spelling, which is used far more on Wikipedia than I had expected. This is an area that is far less cut and dried than you appear to think; I don't think it's a good area for automated scripts. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: I'm a A-Level student and I took English Literature and Language - I'm aware of Oxford Spelling. Trust me, I've read through WP:ENGVAR and I understand the policy. In fact I understand it better now - the script is also manual, I have to edit articles myself. Jaguar 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruption[edit]

Jaguar, having had it explained that changes require a consensus, or strong national ties, has continued unilateral script-based changes of the English variants. See his contributions again. Among these are the Suez Crisis, which Canada and the US were also involved in, and Suriname, with no clear logic at all.

At this point, I move that he be blocked, at least from using a script, and that he undo all of the script-based ENGVAR changes he has done. In cases where he thinks it should be changed, he should begin a discussion about why it should be changed, and in no cases make such a change unilaterally. Oreo Priest talk 18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm trying to figure out why he changed Suriname, other than a desire to remove all USENG from neutral articles, which would be against policy. Jaguar, you've never been blocked and have almost 20k edits behind you, is there a compelling reason to not block you now? I hate to be the first, but you appear to be giving the finger to the community here by immediately going and modifying articles against policy while the discussion is ongoing. That is, by definition, WP:DE. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Oreo, are you kidding me? Disruptive editing? Is that what you seriously think? I can't even believe I'm being threatened to get blocked - the thought of it is just like what? Suriname is a former Netherlands colony, it gained independence a few decades ago and by then some of it was known as British Guiana (neighbouring French Guiana today). I was going to do Guyana instead, but accidentally mistook Suriname for the British colony - they were historically tied. That warrants British Spelling. My recent contributions are not 'disruptive' and far from it, I'm just trying to place British English into its correct articles for a change, maybe I have made a couple of mistakes then, Japan, Argentina etc. Now I have been told that the original English should be kept in the articles I will happily leave them be. Jaguar 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Here is the problem Jaguar, you are going about this in a way that forces multiple people to watch your edits to catch things like Suriname and Suez Crisis, neither of which requires British Eng. Had they been started with it, fine, but changing the style of English on article that do not demand it IS disruptive, as is the way you are going about it. Some of your changes are obviously fine and even obvious, like Commonwealth of Nations and Greenwich Mean Time. Let me help you out a bit: If it isn't painfully obvious that the article should be in UKENG, like the two I've linked here, then ask on the talk page first. The fact that you mistook Suriname for a British Colony is the problem, your mistakes are the problem, you are erring on the side of "made the change" when you should be erring on the side of "don't make the change". I mean seriously, you made TWO such errors in the amount of time I took to type this paragraph, while it was being discussed at ANI. That is not a show of good judgement. I am wondering if Yngvadottir was correct above, and maybe the script should not be used. It is a convenient way to get in trouble and rapidly make lots of mistakes. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • As has already been mentioned above, you (Jaguar) don't seem to understand the concept of Oxford spelling. The "-ize" suffix is not and never has been incorrect in British English, and is standard in publications ranging from the Times to the Oxford English Dictionary. You continuing to make these changes is getting well over the line into disruption. Mogism (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not kidding you Jaguar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you did not intend for your edits to be disruptive, but that is certainly the effect. I see that you have a long track record of positive contributions, which is in part why I find this so puzzling. Certainly, you know the importance of consensus when making controversial changes, especially when it was just explained to you.
I am also quite serious about you cleaning up the massive mess you have left. Hundreds of script based edits, many of which are no longer the most recent and not easily revertable, are a massive burden to undo. At this point "I will leave them be" amounts to "now that things are the way I want them, let's keep them that way". Once again, in the cases where you think there is actually a good rationale, make sure you actually provide it and first obtain consensus (after reverting your unilateral changes that is). In the case of Suriname, for example, the only logic was an implicit 'makes sense to me', and you even had the audacity to tag it to say that it should stay British English in the future. So once again, seriously clean up the massive mess you have made. Oreo Priest talk 18:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Further, let's be amply clear. "The UK was once involved historically with the subject" does not constitute a strong national tie. Oreo Priest talk 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • On what bases was the variation of English changed form US to British on Sudan, Suez Canal, Suez Crisis, Poland, World War I, World War II among others. You have never provided an explanation or pointed to a past consensus as to why the variation of English were changed. One could say that these edits are nationalistic in their intent. —Farix (t | c) 18:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Oreo and Farix are completely correct here. If you could use that rationale, then everything about America that is east of the Appalachian Mountains would use UK English, which happens to be where I hang my hat. I don't think you are intentionally trying to be disruptive either, but WP:DE isn't about intent. Whether someone is intentionally disrupting or just needs to be smacked with a clue bat, the end result is the same. In this case, I'm recommending the clue bat. You seem to have a misunderstanding of when to switch to UKENG and when to leave it completely alone. Before you do any more of this, you need some mentoring or something, so we don't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Suez Canal and Suez Crisis should normally be in BE it seems to me, on special connection grounds, as the British were the only major Anglophone players. I can see a case for Sudan too - essentially a British invention in its modern form, and a in effect British colony for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you see a case, but he didn't make the case, strong national ties are not obvious, there is no consensus and I would in fact dispute all of these. Oreo Priest talk 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:TIES states that there must be "strong national ties" to a subject before you can switch from one variation of English to another. However, what ties the UK has for Suez Canal and Suez Crisis are not that strong. Especially the Suez Crisis, where the US was heavily involved on the diplomatic front. If you are going to make judgements on which country has "stronger" ties, then you've already failed to understand WP:ENGVAR. Case in point, World War I, where both countries were involved, but there are some editors who want to make it British English on the bases that the UK has "stronger ties" than the US. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have self reverted all of my edits regarding non-British related articles, except from Norway. I don't know why, but neighbouring Sweden was already written in UK spelling, so I've left Norway out. Everything else is UK-related. World War II was already British Spelling, I did not change it. I took that as an invitation to convert World War I to UK spelling, so you can revert me on that if you want, I'm going to leave it. The mess isn't as massive as I thought, less than 100 edits and only a handful were mistakes which I've mostly corrected now. My intentions were good, I didn't mean to be disruptive in any way. From now on I will stop using scripts for non-UK related subjects (save Canada). Jaguar 18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jaguar: I wish this were true. Of over 100 edits, you only reverted 8. You changed South Korea back, but not North Korea. Minecraft remains at UK English, again with no explanation given, as does television. Suez Canal, Spain, the list goes on. You have also made no effort at justifying why you think any of the remaining articles you left where they were have strong national ties to the UK. Please check WP:ENGVAR to see examples; in short the connection must be incredibly strong and incredibly clear. Please don't stop with this token effort, but finish what you started. Oreo Priest talk 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF is really not a bases to ignore WP:ENGVAR, however, there are far more articles that still need to be reverted. Remember that the key words are strong ties. Not just any kind of ties that are remotely connected to either the UK or US. —Farix (t | c) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm very serious about getting some mentoring from someone who knows ENGVAR inside and out. What you are attempting to do is fine, but you have to realize that Finland might be USENG while Sweden is UKENG and the reason is that the original version was just written in that version. Neither version of English is preferred for these articles. In a few select circumstances, one version or the other is more appropriate but most of those are already changed over except for a few words that need cleaning up due to us Yanks editing Brit articles and vise versa. If you see an article that you think needs to be wholesale converted, odds are good that you are mistaken. You say you have started reverting, but as Farix points out, you really need to examine all the edits you have made, or maybe make a list and let someone else look and objectively say if it needs reverting. That is a very time consuming task, unless you have a script to convert UK to US English as well. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jaguar: I'm not going to get into qualifications with you because it's not really germane plus I don't want to out myself! However, your responses here suggest that you still have not realised that not unnecessarily changing the variety of English in which the article was originally written is part of WP:ENGVAR. In fact it is its essence: the guideline was developed to prevent destructive edit wars based on individual preferences. It does not matter what variety of English Sweden uses; Norway appears to have used U.S. English from the start (things are complicated by an import from NostalgiaWiki, but I find "aluminum" in 2010), and failing consensus on the talk page that there is a compelling reason to change, the guideline says leave it be. At World War I such an argument has been made on the talk page, and I've expressed my opinion there. I suggest you do too. However, the diff of your change at World War I provides what I consider a decisive argument that you should not be making script-assisted edits in this area, because apart from the issue of policy, you are not verifying the changes acceptably. You changed [[Momčilo Gavrić (soldier)|Momčilo Gavrić]] to [[Momčilo Gavrić (soldier)|motherčilo Gavrić]]. Stop using the script. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We should not have to repeatedly come here and have you revert your switched from American English to British English (because you are only reverting article that are being brought up in this discussion). This is further compounded by the fact that you did not explained why you made the switch for each article, which means that all these switches are suspect unless they are blatantly obvious. It's one thing to say, "harmonizing language to established WP:ENGVAR", or "Novel by a British author, using British English per WP:TIES". But by the appearance of your edits, you seem to have taken the position that if the subject doesn't have strong US ties or has very week British ties, it should use British English. However, this is not what WP:ENGVAR says. —Farix (t | c) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Just floating an idea here...[edit]

I know this is not the place for this idea to be extensively discussed, let alone decided, but I do want to mention the idea that perhaps we shouldn't worry so much about mixing different version of English in our articles. I grew up reading both American English and British English books, and as an adult I worked on many productions of British English plays, so it's never really bothered me to see "colour" and "honor" in the same article. Since we carry articles in a variety of different type of English, I think the presumption is that our readers can deal with reading those different versions when they switch from article to article, so why should it be so important to keep them segregated within an article?

Mind, I'm not saying that ENGVAR shouldn't be enforced when ignoring it becomes disruptive, as in this case, I just don't think that mixing varieties within an article is all that big a deal, unless something specific is impeding the ability of the reader to understand the article. BMK (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

👍 Like --v/r - TP 20:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that is that there are differences of grammar and word usage, too. (These are more evident with Indian English, which many of us not from that part of the world are less familiar with.) It's an imperfect world, and the encyclopaedia is full of more obvious errors such as apostrophe errors, we have an imposed usage with respect to quotation marks and terminal punctuation to prevent fruitless edit-warring over that issue, and links can do a lot to help the reader (as with billion, truck, football) but for precision and clarity, I think we need to recognise that the different dialect groups do differ, and mixing them increases the potential for confusion rather than mitigating it. We can't impose "world English" even if we wanted to. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should be concerned about those things, but it's relatively simple to write "truck (lorry)", "football (soccer)" or "billion (109)" in places where ambiguity needs to be cleared up. I think it's an erroneous assumption that simply having the article written in one version of English is going to clue in the reader as to what meaning they should give those words, especially if they're read out of context, as is often the case.

Again, I'm not saying let's wipe out ENGVAR altogether. It's entirely appropriate that articles about Indian subjects use Indian English, I'm just saying let's not lose sleep when versions get mixed, especially in articles for which there is no logically preferred variety. BMK (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't lose sleep, no, and I sincerely hope no-one does. But the usefulness of having a rule in this case is that it resolves disputes. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken is spot on. Unless the changes are blatantly disruptive. I read things daily that are a mixture of both forms of English, but if someone wants to go into articles and make them one or the other I see no issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 21:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A gigantic trout to BMK for this outrageous suggestion—what will the good folk at WT:MOS do if there are no rules to be enforced? Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • They'd have time to take us all out for a beer! BMK (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to ban script use for a limited time[edit]

I don't think the disruption is intentional, but that doesn't make it any less problematic. I also don't think Jaguar really fully accepts the responsibility for the script's use either, in spite of a number of people trying to explain. I'm left with only a few tools in which to deal with this problem, and "ignore" isn't an option. I don't want to go so far as to ban ENGVAR as a whole and think that perhaps he can learn it in time, thus I propose:


Jaguar be banned from using any automated script or tool relating to ENGVAR, broadly interpreted, through Dec. 31, 2014. Manual ENGVAR edits would not be affected. Jaguar must also participate in cleaning up the damage done to the satisfaction of the community. Violations of this ban would be dealt with using escalating blocks.


  • Support as proposer. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I came here to ask on what rationale he changed Minecraft to Oxford spelling, and in what way the structure "in order to" violated the rules of that variety of English. This script needs to go back on the shelf and the editor needs to talk through the issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest just deleting the script. While it may be helpful in some respects, it yields itself far too easily to abuse and rash actions that most of us consider disruptive—such as this case. It is the hammer that is always looking for a nail. If a similar thing happened with AWB, they would have had their usage of that editing tool pulled. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know I could be fighting a lost cause, but I must get this point out - perhaps this is being taken too far? Is there a possibility that we could be getting carried away with the problems of the script? As far as I see it, the script itself doesn't need to be re-evaluated and neither do I. I've already reverted the non-UK articles I've implemented the spelling in, so what is the point of these sanctions? So that I can never do it again? What if I just say that I will never use the script for non-UK and non-Canadian articles? I already have done, so why the sanctions? Will it get us anywhere? I will accept responsibility for what I've done, but I disagree with these threats of escalating blocks. Jaguar 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Syria, China, Egypt, Kenya, Belize, South Sudan, Russia, Television, Computer, and Personal computer are all non-UK articles that you converted but have not reverted back. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    Farix, did you check them? I have reverted all but three back! Belize and Kenya are English speaking countries and they use British Spelling! Jaguar 21:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    What about Personal computer?--v/r - TP 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've just reverted that one back. Jaguar 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Great proposal. Though I do think that he should be allowed use of a US English ENGVAR script to clean up the damage. (I strongly doubt he will go overboard with this one.) Oreo Priest talk 22:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    If you mean under your personal supervision for a day or two, then that would probably be fine, but not on his own. He still hasn't shown an understanding of the policy in general. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    I understand both the policy and all what you have told me. In a nut shell, stick the national spelling to their respective national articles. Jaguar 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    I can supervise him to clean up the damage, sure. I'm concerned that requiring to clean up the damage will lack teeth, and he'll shirk actually reverting any but the ones manually pointed out to him, and even then he'll skip some of those. It's what he's been doing so far. Oreo Priest talk 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is not with the tool, it's that the user doesn't understand the ENGVAR policy. His "In a nut shell" comment just above only confirms that he doesn't understand it. Given that, he should not be encouraged to change the variety of English used in any article, whether manually or with scripts or other tools. --Amble (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Using a script to change the variety of English is basically a bad idea. That should be done manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This seems like a good way to go to encourage the editor to learn ENGVAR by doing manual changes. BMK (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Robert McClenon. The proposed ban is a bit long, but it's only on script-assisted edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI The changes to Television had not been self-reverted by Jaguar as of about two hours ago, when I noticed and reverted them. I then got curious, checked the source of the evidently unjustified and oddly incomplete (it was still "color" in most places) changes, and was very surprised to find that this example of arbitrary and tiresome AE>BE orthographic imperialism was due to an experienced editor. AVarchaeologist (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have no idea why Jaguar is making these changes but he definitely means well. Rather than a ban which seems rather forceful and bureaucratic given that he doesn't have a long history of repeated offenses, I simply suggest that Jaguar just avoids making such changes and we can all move on. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    This is why I didn't propose an ENGVAR ban, just a ban of the tools. If you don't know what you are doing, doing it faster isn't the solution. This ban will allow him to fix ENGVAR issues on any article, Wiki-wide, he just can't do it at the speed of sound. The alternative is to allow to keep using the tools, making lots of errors and end up getting blocked. This is the least aggressive way to deal with the problem. Also note that it is for a fixed time, not indef. He doesn't have to come grovel to get access back, it is automatic. Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Mistakes have been made. That's enough for me to advise shutting this user's toy down for the year. Carrite (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    That's not very nice is it... Jaguar 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but I don't like automated content editing. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Use the opportunity to familiarize yourself with ENGVAR, and edit cooperatively. Clean up your inappropriate changes, which becomes more time consuming when others have edited the article after your changes. Do not use a script to implement changes which are likely to be controversial. Edison (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Question Editing with a script is not a subject with which I am at all familiar, so this is clearly a question asked from a position of ignorance: Is the problem the script itself, or in Jaquar's misuse of it? Would the exact same script used by someone with better judgment be non-problematic? BMK (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    Even when you use a script, you are responsible for what that script does. If it screws something up, you don't blame the script, you blame the user. Here, the script made errors that he didn't check, PLUS the script is helping him make judgement errors at an accelerated pace. The problem is still Jaguar and his judgement, and removing access to the script may keep him from getting blocked or topic banned altogether. He still needs to learn ENGVAR, as his understanding of it is very, very flawed. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We are going too overboard with these idle threats of blocks and sanctions! I know that after I say this I'm just going to get hit with a lot of recoil - but let's step back and take a look at what I've actually done with this script. It's literally not a big deal - the script changes a few characters of a few words in a article (ize --> ise, or --> our, o --> oe) and whether or not people see it as disruptive, it just isn't! I've already reverted the few bytes worth of extra characters I've put in a few non-related UK articles. What's the point of these sanctions and criticism? The script is literally changing a few "bytes" of characters, I don't endorse the changes to non-UK or non-Canadian articles, but people are getting too carried away. I wish I'd never edited Belgium and none of this would have ever happened. And now I've said that, I'm ready for the abuse... Jaguar 09:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This comment shows that you still don't understand the scope of what you did. You weren't merely "changing a few bytes". You were changing the vary language that was being used on the articles. The reason for it? You didn't—and have yet to—give one and you were doing it on a massive scale. WP:ENGVAR is very clear that you don't make such changes unless (a) you get a consensus or (b) the article clearly has strong ties to the UK. Even when you claimed to have reverted all of your mistakes, editors had to repeatedly point out more articles to you. You only reverted an article when an editor specifically pointed it out to you that you should not have changed it. —Farix (t | c) 10:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Quite apart from the issue that you have been ignoring the essence of WP:ENGVAR, which is do not change the variety of English without good reason, you allowed the script to change a person's name in World War I. You were not responsibly monitoring the changes it made. I'm sorry for the emphasis, but you have been told this, and it matters. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
ENGVAR is a delicate and sensitive consensus. By rolling into town with automation, you are essentially cutting cookies on the front lawn with an ATV. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, no one should be running a script to convert a large number of articles from American to British English or vice versa, hence why I think said script should be deleted outright. However, if it is not going to be deleted, it needs to be recoded to use some sort of white-list (for both users and articles) along with a popup telling the editor using the script that they are responsible for its use and that they should that there is a per-established consensus for such a conversion. —Farix (t | c) 19:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The script itself is OK, it's just that there are certain things in it that could be improved. For example "in order to" should not be deleted as this has always been used in UK spelling, and in some cases the script did not change "color" into "colour". With the script's creator's permission, I could have adjusted the script myself and optimised it. The script is widely used by other editors, I saw that I was not the only one who used it. Deleting it isn't the right thing to do. Jaguar 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Jaguar's cavalier and dismissive attitude is shown by "We are going too overboard with these idle threats of blocks and sanctions!" Please believe that you are not reading "Idle threats." I would certainly block a disruptive editor who refused to follow ENGVAR. Far too much time has been wasted in years gone by in pointless arguments over which version of English is "correct." Color vs colour, Push up vs Press up, and countless more. We do not want to revisit every such long-drawn out and pointless argument. Edison (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no correct version of English, it is essentially the same language however I have corrected my mistakes and familiarised myself with ENGVAR, thus I have stopped using the script for non UK and Canadian related articles since this ANI discussion has come to light. Jaguar 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep on repeating this tired old lie. You have not corrected all of your mistakes, not even close. You have corrected only ones that have been manually pointed out to you, and even then you have skipped fixing many of those. You need to make a good faith effort to fix all of your mistakes, without skipping ones that seem fine to you, and you need to not make it another editor's problem to clean up behind you. You have so far shown remarkable audacity in insisting you've cleaned everything up, when there are still dozens of articles left unaddressed. Oreo Priest talk 08:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Jaguar, you're treading very close to the line, if you haven't crossed it already, of disruption similar to when you created hundreds of articles on Chinese towns and cities citing the same source without checking that you were referencing the correct page of the source because you didn't understand the language. As then, you are now arguing that what you did was "not a big deal". Unfortunately, what you did turned out to be a big deal and resulted in all of those articles needing to be nuked because of the sheer number of wrong references. I forget the exact number, someone might remember, but it was well over 1000 stubs. The trouble is that your percentage of errors is high enough that it would warrant checking of all of the associated edits and because it is interspersed with enough good contributions that it rises to the level of disruption. This is not about bringing up old soup but to show that you have prior history of causing this sort of disruption and then trying to defend it. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
My last ANI discussion was two years ago and by that time much has changed. This script I've been using, the fact that I have made at least a dozen mistakes compared to creating nearly 10,000 stubs are not noticeable in this case. My intentions are always good, and in this case I have reverted my mistakes and stuck to UK and Canadian related articles. I don't know what else to say without repeating myself. Everyone makes mistakes, and I know that 10,000 stubs sounds like a large number but it is nothing compared to my good contributions and all the notable things I've done for this encyclopaedia. Jaguar 18:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This has been open 5 days now, and is probably ripe for closure. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree; the way I see things is that I will either be revoked from using the script, be blocked, or left alone. The choice isn't mine to make, but if it were I would leave things be as I have and will not edit any more non UK and Canadian articles using the script. With the script creator's permission I can edit the script for myself to optimise it (I've looked through the source, it isn't difficult). There was little damage done and it was quick to be fixed, I'm glad things didn't get worse for all of us. Jaguar 18:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously conflicted edits to A2 milk[edit]

BlackCab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

BC has declared (in a way) a conflict of interest with regard to, "extensive work I carried out on the A2 milk article". BC has not declared who paid the "fee" in question but has suggested that as their contract or agreement didn't specify "promotion" in particular, they are exempt from the provisions of WP:NOPAY. Nonetheless, the original "extensive work" constitutes this major rewrite of the article in line with this draft.

That edit did a number of things -

  • It increased the prominence of "fringe" claims (including the suggestion that A2 milk might diminish the symptoms of autism)
  • It introduced (twice) a story about the mainstream milk industry trying to "discredit" A2 products
  • It introduced a story about a rouge operator fined for making dishonest medical claims, described by the edit as "a small Queensland start-up" but by news media as "one of A2 Corporation Ltd's major licensees in Australia"
  • It inferred scientific and medical concerns with regard to A2's competitors (the makers of regular A1 milk) framing each claim as being backed by strong science thus forcing "denials" from milk producers, framing "adverse effects" as being "disputed by some scientists" rather than those adverse effects being assertions from a handful of fringe scientists (as they are).
  • It listed a number of studies on (non-human) animals with regard to a particular element of non-A2 milk, inferring danger to humans if extrapolated (without acknowledging that no such human trials had been conducted).
  • It introduced a suggestion (in Wikipedia's voice) that regular milk should be compared to opioids or narcotics by comparison to A2 Milk.

...and made a significant number of other changes. The edit was reverted but then reinstated by BC after they "reinforced" their position on the article talk page. This has been a fairly consistent MO since - BC posts what he/she believes is a strong argument against a particular criticism on the talk page and then shortly thereafter reinstates a section citing no immediate argument with their claim.

Whatever the arrangement with BC's employer, BC's original edit, edits since and draft article are all obviously designed to promote A2 Milk in general and the a2 Corporation in particular. BC should absolutely be held to the provisions of WP:NOPAY at a minimum and be confined to editing the talk page with {{Request edit}} templates. Stlwart111 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Response: I am a consumer of A2 milk, which is now a leading milk brand in Australia, and am interested in the subject of why it is different to normal supermarket milk. The article on A2 milk on Wikipedia was a stub and flagged for poor grammar, poor construction and poor sourcing. Considering (a) the market share it has in Australia and its entry to the UK and US markets, and (b) the conflicting views among scientists on its potential health benefits compared with normal milk and (c) the range of news stories and serious television coverage it has received in New Zealand and Australia, I considered I could, with extensive research, greatly improve the article.
I approached it the same way I approached other articles I have completely rewritten and expanded -- among them East West Link, Melbourne, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917). The exception in this case, knowing it would be a huge task, was to arrange for a fee for my work. I have not set out to promote A2 milk; my intention was and is to present more information about it, its history and the scientific disagreement -- issues that have also spawned a book, Devil in the Milk by a NZ agricultural professor, and widespread media coverage of the milk and a number of questionable tactics by rivals who have lost market share. I posted a disclosure notice on my user page before replacing the shitty stub with my much bigger version.[2].
A couple of users objected to my use of Devil in the Milk and some primary sources (scientific papers) in the science section and immediately began a campaign of denigration and canvassing, labelling the article and its sourcing as "fringe", "weird", and the lie that it was "based on anecdotes and a few primary sources".[3]. (At that stage it contained more than 40 citations to news reports). I fully accept that I was not familiar with WP:RSMED or its requirements and was content to have that section removed while I reworked it with better sourcing. User:WhatamIdoing also intervened to point out that a couple of editors were misusing BRD: instead of deleting sections or flagging sections for better sources, they simply reverted the whole article. I also agreed with the removal of a section on digestive benefits of A2 milk, agreeing that anecdotal claims were unacceptable.[4]
Throughout the process I have endeavoured to be co-operative and collaborative. However I have encountered rising levels of antagonism towards me and my edits, particularly once it became more widely known that I had accepted a fee. This is all laid bare on the talk page, culminating in a personal attack by User:Stalwart111 which blatantly breaches WP:AGF. [5] That user has also demanded that I cease editing the article and offer suggestions on the talk page.
I have zero confidence in this system working because of the collection of hostile editors who are acting as gatekeepers.
On 16 July Stalwart111 removed a paragraph from the "background" section, then on the talk page requested "incredibly strong MEDRS sourcing".[6] Since then I have provided a string of high-quality sources to satisfy his request and finally a grab-bag of statements from a range of websites by Googling a couple of terms to demonstrate that the fact I added as background is widely accepted science. When there was initially no response after I listed those quality sources, I reinstated the paragraph; he promptly reverted it again[7] claiming that "consensus among others is contrary to your opinion". That was a lie: there had been discussion up to that point, either agreeing or disagreeing with the list of sources I had provided. Still no one has discussed what is a plain statement of scientific fact -- a fact completely supported by the sources I provided and typed out as quotes.
On 19 July User:Roxy the dog altered the wording in the article's lead section from "There is no consensus that A2 milk has benefits over "A1" milk" to "There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk". [8] This is a very clear case of cherry picking, and provocation: the statement, although correctly sourced to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is not an accurate and balanced statement for an encyclopedia. I started a new thread, pointing out that the EFSA review was just one of four reviews I'm aware of: two others said no such thing and referred to scientific evidence they found "intriguing" and worth further study.
In short, a number of editors on the A2 page have now become obstructive and are, I suspect, editing the article -- and blocking my edits of the article -- in order to denigrate A2 milk as a form of pushback against my edits. In the current version of the article I see nothing that markets or promotes A2 milk, or makes false claims, or presents fringe science. This is what others claim is there and as a result are questioning my motives. I say again: I am now NOT promoting A2 milk. I have read WP:NOPAY carefully and I am convinced I am not bound by its requirement to edit the article through the talk page using them as mediators. I have been working on Wikipedia for many years, have created, expanded and improved many articles. This one, to me, is no different. It was shitty, and I can improve it. And I have not finished: I am still reworking an extensive section dealing with the conflicting science findings and the series of reviews of published evidence. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack - that's an assessment of your suggestion that while you've accepted a fee and have made promotional edits, you're not subject to guidelines related to accepting a fee and making promotional edits. Stlwart111 05:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
So help me here: what, in the existing article (the result of early collaboration and compromise), is promotional? Serious question. BlackCab (TALK) 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Facepalm3.svg Facepalm. Not much - that's the point. We successfully resisted your efforts to turn the article into a glowing endorsement of the subject and a stinging rebuke of its competitors. But those efforts (and your dissertation above) demonstrate that you are incapable of approaching this subject in a neutral manner. To be honest, I'd have concerns with your edits even if you weren't being paid to make them - your agenda seems pretty straightforward, with or without a pay-cheque at the end. Stlwart111 06:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
If "we" had our "our" way the article would still be the shitty stub, which is what "we" (User:Bhny and User:Roxy the dog) reverted it to in a tag-team manoeuvre,[9][10] with a sham appeal to BRD. (Neither editor was willing to engage in meaningful discussion: Bhny immediately started his surreptitious canvassing campaign with misleading claims at two noticeboards; Roxy's contributions have been laced with sneering sarcasm.[11]). It was only the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing—who actually read my edit and reinstated material that was clearly unobjectional [12][13]—that took the article to what it is now. I accepted this. I accepted the removal of the "Digestive benefits" section. I accepted that the science section needed to be reworked. I made all this clear on the talk page. From that point more -- quite innocuous -- material was deleted; my subsequent attempts to discuss this and reinstate (a) a one-paragraph statement of scientific fact and (b) the fact that there is no consensus over the benefits of A2 milk have been met with obstruction, derision and abuse. I am doing all I can to collaborate. And Stalwart111's final little insult ("I'd have concerns with your edits even if you weren't being paid to make them) is yet another unwarranted attack on my good faith. Just examine my record. BlackCab (TALK) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Through following further links from WP:PAID, I have located a June 16, 2014 update to the Wikimedia terms of use pertaining—for the first time—to paid editing. I have therefore updated the disclosure notice on my user page. BlackCab (TALK) 08:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
No, if "we" had "our" way you would have complied with WP:NOPAY to begin with, proposed edits on the talk page and we would have avoided your initial attempts to turn the article into a marketing tool for your client. You didn't and we're here because you continue to believe those rules don't apply to you. And you forgot Jim1138, Second Quantization and an IP who all objected to various parts of your various claims. And your new declaration makes it clear you are being paid by a public relations and media management company for whom A2 is a major client. Stlwart111 11:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I have requested comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue: their new Terms of Use do allow for editors to accept a fee, so how do they view a situation such as this? Did they envisage that an editor who did so would consequently be subjected to such a tirade and a clear pattern of obstruction? But in the meantime I'll ask again, if Stalwart111 can just draw breath from his outpouring of venom and vitriol: what, in the existing article (the outcome of the collaboration and compromise achieved after the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing), is promotional? And can he please return to the article talk page and express a view on whether the sources I promptly and comprehensively provided in answer to his request support the paragraph he removed? BlackCab (TALK) 12:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh please, it's not a "tirade" or "venom" or "vitriol". You and your multinational corporate client are not the victims here. WP:NOPAY is very clear - "you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as [... a] contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes...)". You fit squarely into that category. Why do you insist that the rules don't apply to you? I've answered your question - it isn't promotional now. But we've all been subjected to long and repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with us. WhatamIdoing? reinstated only 17,000 bytes of your 53,000-byte promotional edit. So about 35,000 bytes of promotional material was removed by the "compromise" you were forced to accept. And I've removed more since. And you've been fighting 6 editors on that talk page ever since. And you openly admit you want to add more. Either play by the rules or don't; your choice. Stlwart111 13:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"I have requested comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue: their new Terms of Use do allow for editors to accept a fee, so how do they view a situation such as this?" You can accept a payment, but you are still required to follow WP:COI and WP:PAY. "what, in the existing article" The more interesting question is, if no one had stopped you, what would the article look like? We know the answer to that: [14]. See WP:COIADVICE as well, particularly If the article you want to edit has few involved editors, consider asking someone at the talk page of a related Wikiproject for someone to make the change.. Second Quantization (talk)

Obvious promotional content is obvious. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And obvious collaboration is obvious. I have accepted without demur the edits made early in the piece. Now a simple scientific statement has been removed and will not even be discussed, and a claim has been inserted into the lead based on a cherry-picked source. And I am subjected to non-stop abuse. BlackCab (TALK) 22:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
BlackCab, you're a long term and productive editor, so I don't understand why you've put yourself in this position by accepting a fee for contributions. Your edits to this article have brought forward a quantity of potentially useful sources and contributed to a more detailed piece on A2 milk. Whether these meet MEDRS is a live content dispute on the article talk page, which is where it should be. And the article as it currently stands is certainly a more comprehensive treatment of the subject than it as a few weeks ago. Its current form (thanks to various contributions)is not overly promotional, or is within the bounds of what can reasonably be argued out on a talk page.
However, it remains that you have a conflict of interest in editing an article on a company where that company is paying you to do so. This edit, at the least, contained material that other editors rightly considered promotional and lacking a neutral point of view. Increased scrutiny of these edits is not routinely harrassment, but part of the stricter examination of potentially COI paid contributions. You have appropriately declared that conflict on your userpage, though I think most people would dispute your claim that you are under no obligation to promote the product. Your PR agency is not funding your edits from a sense of philanthropy and whatever your independent intentions, it would be their reasonable expectation that the article you produce would be in the commercial interests of their client.
So: the declaration is great and in accordance with one half of WP:NOPAY. But there is a strong discouragement of paid editing, which is what you are currently engaged in. How about you now follow the other half of NOPAY and propose any further edits to this article solely on its talkpage rather than adding them directly to the article? Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Euryalus. If the article on A2 milk is to be complete and thorough, it still needs to cover its history: how and why it came to market. This is essentially a section that deals with the science—the initial concerns that led to someone to decide to produce a milk free of A1 betacasein and the series of scientific reviews that followed. I concede (and have done so all along) that the science section (as with the digestive benefits section) was a bit ham-fisted, mainly because I was unaware of a Wikipedia policy on primary sourcing (the findings of researchers, even in peer-reviewed journals) on medical issues. In the days after uploading the article, I realised a more diplomatic approach would be to do just that: create a sandbox, drop the intended copy there and point to it from the talk page and invite discussion.
The problem now is that the hostility towards my edits and me personally have risen to levels that make any collaboration next to impossible. As I have mentioned, there are still two outstanding issues on the talk page that cannot be resolved because editors are focusing on the fee (and what they see as my compromised position) rather than the content: (a) an innocuous (but highly pertinent) scientific fact about the release of peptides during digestion of milk and (b) an edit that seems to be a deliberate negative twist in the lead, based on a cherry-picked source. Really, what hope do I have of sober, productive collaboration? I am on the receiving end both at that page and right here, of unwarranted abuse and a very clear lack of AGF. It seems to me my chances of progressing on the article now are practically nil. Wikimedia Foundation created Terms of Use that allow what am I am doing. Other editors need to accept that and work with it ... and me. BlackCab (TALK) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Being a paid editor does not allow you to draw unsupported conclusions and put said conclusions into wikipedia articles. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The collaboration process involves accepting the input of other editors and I have done that. Whatever errors of judgment I may have made in my first venture into paid editing have been removed and I have accepted that. Other editors have now ceased collaborating and are focusing on insult, obstruction and in the case of Roxy the dog[15][16] deliberate provocation. BlackCab (TALK) 00:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And still Roxy the dog persists in removing a {{dubious - discuss}} tag on the false statement he added based on a cherry-picked source.[17] That edit is still under discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 02:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And you keep edit-warring it back in. Nobody else agrees that statement is "dubious". You failing to hear what others are telling you is not the same thing as "still under discussion". Not a single person (here or there) has agreed with your suggestion that you should be exempt from WP:NOPAY or that your edits at A2 milk have been anything but promotional and tendentious. Stlwart111 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Proposal - BlackCab's paid editing experiment has been an unmitigated disaster. Nobody is suggesting their contributions prior to this have been anything but constructive and positive. They have comprehensively demonstrated an ability to contribute productively to a range of areas over the course of many years. But that seems to have gone out the window at A2 milk. BC continues to believe that the provisions of WP:NOPAY should not apply to them, despite having clearly outlined that they fall into the category of editors specified there. Despite the issues, I firmly believe that blocking them would be a net loss to the project. But something must be done, if for no other reason than the promotionalism and argument has now transitioned to edit-warring. I ask that BlackCab be topic-banned from the subject of milk, broadly construed. Stlwart111 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - My first reaction was to think that Doc James or WP:Medicine folks should be called in, but I see that was done long ago. Given the violation of WP:Promotion and an extremely argumentative display here and on the talk page, it's fairly easy to conclude that BC is being disruptive, even without the edit-warring. A milk-only topic ban is appropriate. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Does the current article read as a promotion? Stalwart111 says above "it isn't promotional now." Is the article an improvement on its original stub? It covers much broader ground and is better sourced, so yes. Am I edit warring? I have twice reinstated a {{dubious - discuss}} tag on an issue that is still under discussion on the talk page. That's it. Am I argumentative? I have certainly argued my point on the talk page and on this page: that's the point of a talk page. Am I being disruptive? No. I have disrupted nothing. I am trying to collaborate, to resolve disputes on the talk page, but struggling against editors who have become hostile. A topic ban would be unwarranted. I am still seeking some meaningful, informed input on the issue of paid editing, which is now within the Wikimedia Terms of Use. My reading is that I am not promoting the product and am therefore free to edit the article. Others clearly disagree, and I think this issue needs fuller, reasoned discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 05:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from milk, based not on paid editing but on use of Wikipedia for promotional activity, which is already prohibited by policy. User's edits would support topic ban whether or not there was a COI; in fact, status as paid editor is rather superfluous to this discussion. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see no benefit to the project for sanction of any kind on BC, as once this drama is over I seriously doubt he will want to return to this topic. As a consumer of a2 milk, BC must believe in the benefits as having genuine science backing, (as so successfully promoted by those who gain financially from the market segmentation.) His disruptive behaviour and disregard for COI related policy and guidelines such as WP:NOPAY stem from the fact that he is acting "in good faith". As an extremely experienced editor with considerable writing talent, this first foray into paid editing and a scientific topic has been unpleasant, and this drama is the downside of his lack of understanding of the way we interpret scientific evidence. Nobody gains if a sanction is applied. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with a topic ban. I regard paid editing as a pariah to this project. Blackcab does decent work in other areas and I disagree often with him on his views but paid editing is a BAD THING...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • On a side note conflicts of interest seem to be BC's biggest flaw as a contributor, the disturbing part is the singlemindedness to push their POV, I think that they can be contained but especially where there is vested interest we should be proactive more rather then wait for them to sneak in more whitewashing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a topic ban. Absolutely not. There's an accusation that BC's edits have been sub-standard because they were paid to edit the A2 Milk article so the solution is a topic ban on milk? What if they're paid to write about bacon? Will we have that discussion again, until topic areas have been exhausted? No. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the suggestion is that BC's edits have been sub-standard because BC cannot approach this topic from a neutral point of view. BC says their edits are only promotional insofar as they have developed a personal opinion about the subject no related to their paid employment. This topic ban proposal extends beyond that particular article because A2's competitor is A1 milk (basically all other milk). I've seen no evidence BC wouldn't be able to edit "bacon" related topics neutrally, as they have done with all other subjects beyond milk. Stlwart111 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a block or whatever else can be done to stop this disruptive paid editor. Bhny (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

I've stayed away from Wikipedia for a few days to cool down and collect my thoughts. I'll say this: I did make some misjudgments in the beginning with some of the content I added and I regret that. I went in hard and I should have trodden more lightly. It's clear that paid editing is a pathway that's fraught with danger, it can easily be misinterpreted and it clearly raises strong emotions. This was my first venture into it and in the end perhaps Stalwart was right: it was an unmitigated disaster, though I embarked on it with the best of intentions. Having said that, I'll repeat that of the six crimes Stalwart accused me of at the outset, five disappeared from the article (without objection from me) within 24 hours. The sixth is Stalwart's rather tortured interpretation of accepted science, though I accept that if it can be read that way, it should be reworded to remove ambiguity. Essentially the complaint against me is for something I wrote but which has long since disappeared through the normal process of collaboration. My attempt to remain working within the ToU has apparently been decided by some consensus to have failed, and the loudest voices here agree that my efforts were in the end promotional. (This was not my intent, but I accept my first edit injected a promotional element, which I regret). If the consensus is that I should approach the article only through the talk page, I will comply with that. I still have material on the history of A2 milk I wish to add, and the Chinese situation should be updated. But if it's decided that after all these years, all these edits and all this belated grovelling that I just can't be trusted, there's nothing I can do and I'll accept that and return to what I usually do. There have been some unfair and inaccurate claims against me, but c'est la vie. BlackCab (TALK) 10:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • By far your most level-headed, reasonable and collegial contribution to the entire issue to date, especially when read together with your equally tempered post-break comment on the article talk page. Genuine regret, agreement that your original edits were promotional and a willingness to consider the best way to contribute moving forward. Significant concessions. How you contribute is still up to you (I've made my thoughts clear) but the fact that you're now willing to consider an alternate to processes employed thus far is a big step forward. Your break (intentionally of otherwise) stopped the edit-warring and the above strongly suggests you don't intend to jump back in and start that up again. If you can commit to waiting until a genuine consensus has developed on the talk page, I think we can work collaboratively on a proposal for a scientific history section and Chinese section. Stlwart111 12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban on Septate[edit]

Septate is involved in making biased edits, picks 'Religion in..(country)' articles. Every single time he will come up unsourced information, blatant lie and sometimes he would try to support his statement with some fanpage. User has special hatred for Hinduism. Some examples of his editing;-

    • [18] (Misrepresenting French Philosopher Voltaire, that he called Hinduism to be "brutal religion")
    • [19] (Removed "Hinduism")
    • [20] (Removed Hinduism, and removed again even after reliable source was added[21])
    • [22], even after sources, he removed[23]
    • Same as above > [24], [25]
    • Removing Hinduism from pages - Religion in United Kingdom,[26], Religion in Belgium,[27] and many other countries, [28], [29].
    • Rapidly uses some fansites for invalid points[30].

History of Portal:Hinduism/Did you know shows that this user has edit warred for a dyk that never existed.

All Religion in... (country) article where he has participated, he will try to push POV by inserting the images of mosques and removing the images of other worship places. He tries to hype up Sunni sect without adding any source.[31] These are his minor fixes[32], false edit summaries.[33]

Please see the recent history of these articles.[34], [35]

Except Wikipedia:NOTGETTINGIT, Wikipedia:OR, use of edit summaries for discussion and his gossips, what I hated most that once he will know I am offline for days he will start adding same misleading stuff to articles, he actually reverts to his version.[36] [37] I recommend a topic ban on all religion articles. Septate was blocked for edit warring when he was removing the images of Muhammad from Islam page. He likes to edit war but 2 reverts every 24 hours on many pages and he will never hear anything. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had dealings with Septate before [38], [39], [40] but a topic ban may be too harsh as he does make good edits and does respond constructively on his talk page [41]. Suggest WP:0RR or WP:1RR (and a 1 week period instead of 24 hours) instead to get him to use the talk pages more. --NeilN talk to me 13:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Most of Bladesmulti's diffs are for edits made between March and May. Maybe it would have been better to have complained about them nearer the time they were made.
I did find one recent diff, but that was for a reversion of one of Septate's edits by another editor. The other editor wrote: "Reverted to revision 615527903 by Bladesmulti: I object to this removal. The editor has not made their case on the talk page and is relying on WP:OR and less reliable sources." Which was rather a strange comment, considering that all Septate had done was to move one sentence to a section that he/she regarded as more appropriate, and delete one cited statement that said much the same thing as another cited sentence in the section that Septate was moving the other comment to. I do not know whether Septate was right or wrong to make the move - but accusing him/her of WP:OR and using less reliable sources seemed uncalled for. If we look at Septate's edits that were being reverted in this case,[42],[43] you will see that he/she refers to discussion on the article talk page in his/her edit summary. The relevant talk page is Talk:Religion and homosexuality#Hinduism. I noticed that the editor who reverted Septate's edit did not seem to have contributed to this talk page. It does not look like Septate did anything bad in that case - quite the opposite.
My experience of Septate is that he/she has improved his/her behaviour, such that things that he/she would have done a few months ago, he/she no longer does. So it probably is not in the interests of the community to block him/her for doubtful edits that he/she committed a long time ago.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all please clarify which of my edits are lies or blatant POV or vandalism. Adding statement that majority of Muslims in beligium are Sunnis is not a blatant POV in any sense. I always provide soure whereever they are needed see Islam in France. Adding images to articles and organizing them in a proper way is not vandalism. I made edits to religion and homosexuality and ayurveda after a week when you stopped responding. I have promised User:NeilN that I will never accuse another user of lying but please tell me, wasn't it a lie when you claimed on talk:religion and homosexuality that we have a concensus on wikipedia that BBC is not a reliable source for religion. I was engaged in edit war on voltaire. I was warned and got the lesson. You just want me to block from editing Hindu related articles because I raise questions when ever Hinduism is mentioned inapropriatly. I always take that matter to talk page and so no reason for ban.Septate (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The dispute regarding Ayurveda and religion and homosexuality was resolved peacefully.Septate (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It should be mentioned here that much of my disputes with other editor have been resolved and I am engaged in peaceful discussions with other editors as evident from my edit history.Septate (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It was not a lie that you should not use BBC as source on religion articles,[44](tagged copyvio) [45], [46], [47] and your gossips had to do nothing with that BBC link too. Another lie that you reverted after 1 week, I had reverted your edit on 4 July[48] and you reverted to your version on 6 July,[49] you don't know how to count or you are still as dishonest like you were before. Toddy1 have you seen [50] ? It is also correct that this user loves to make useless edits after removing or added content so that recent history on watchlist won't show major change in content. He has also abused the minor change option for making some horrible edits.
None of us can reject that if this user makes 100 edits then at least 90 edits have to be reverted because they are blatant lie or original research. Septate removes warnings but still his talk page is still full of it. Who is going to spend every single day in writing these detailed reports and gain nothing? User had been warned more than 20 times about topic ban or any other restrictions. Only a topic ban or restriction on revert(like NeilN said) can do something. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti - the edit you complain about 06:36, 6 July 2014 removing text, was immediately followed by 06:39, 6 July 2014 where Septate moved one of sentences deleted to another part of the article where he/she thought it ought to go - and I can see why he/she would think that was a better place for it. As for the other sentence deleted in the edit, it said much the same thing as the sentence already there in the place where Septate moved the second sentence to. There is nothing to complain about to ANI regarding that edit. It is a content dispute.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Septate claimed that he edited on that page after a week when he did it after 2 days. It is not hard to understand if you see some of his newest editing on Religion in Swaziland. Yes that 2nd edit was clearly useless and Septate made it only for evading the last disruptive edit that he made to favor his naive opinion. There is no content dispute with this user, because he has never really disputed anything but caused unnecessary disruption. If you revert his disruptive edits he will be mad on you.[51] What about his attacks on Peaceworld111? Septate appears to be faking that he has no access to books so that he can get a chance to remove content that he doesn't like. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, there is an auto-correction feature on my phone which sometimes causes a lot of mistakes. That's why I make a lot of minor edits and these edits are not limited to articles, I make a lot them on talk pages too. See the edit history of user talk NielN. So you can't accuse me of covering up my edits. When it comes to Religion in Swaziland, what I have done is inline with wikipedia's civility guidelines. See this [52]. User ludvonga is unable to cooperate with other users calling there edits vandalism. See talk:Religion in Swaziland which shows that his opinion was clearly original research. Now he has provided sources and dispute is resolved. So no need for false accusations.

When it comes to dispute with peaceworld see User talk:NeilN#Please take action which shows that dispute is resolved. Despite friction between me and user peaceworld we are always able to work together without ending up in an edit war, see User talk:Septate#Ramadhan greetings.

You should ask User:NeilN regarding whether I am able to verify book sources or not. I am not lying, that's for sure! We already had a long debate regarding this.Septate (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am inviting Toddy1, User:NeilN, User:Iryna Harpy and the administrator who is monitoring this to see my contributions anf tell me whether 90% of my edits are lies or POV. That translates to 1500 edits. You are clearly exceeding wikipedia's civility guidelines.Septate (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I also want to question regarding your claim that I always make unsourced edits on religion related articles. Please see Religion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Religion in Burkina Faso, Religion in the Republic of the Congo, Religion in Sierra Leone etc and tell me if they are unsourced. I infact organized those articles by adding graphs. At least 15 users have thanked me for my edits and it would have been impossible if I was a blatant lier!Septate (talk) 06
45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Septate certainly has been a problem in the past. I had experience of him two or three months ago when he was slow edit-warring to remove images of Muhammad. The noticeable feature of the way he was doing it was by using deceptive edit summaries to cover up the removal (and adding minor edits after the removal). See my additional comments in my report here at AN3 for which he got a 48 hour block in April. I thought that he would get the message with this, but he was doing it again here in June when he tried to remove the same image with a deceptive edit summary. I haven't seen much of him since then. Toddy1 says he's improved recently (maybe he would take on the job of mentoring Septate!) although scanning Septate's talk page, including deleted notices it, doesn't fill me with confidence that that is the case. NeilN says that a topic ban is too severe and 1RR should be tried. Perhaps. Unless Toddy1 is right, Septate seemed to me to be on the inevitable road of being indeffed. DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for comment DeCausa. I admit that I was badly wrong when it comes to article Muhammad and that's why I was blocked. I admitted my mistake. You can't use those edits as a reason for accusation.Septate (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I would not endorse a topic ban on Septate. As a newbie, he did start out as being 'overenthusiastic' and was not doing a good job on balancing POV, civility, etc. He has, however, always been prepared to discuss any indiscretions and has become receptive in taking criticisms on board. Had I considered that he was simply a disruptive POV pusher with no subject knowledge, I would have opened an ANI some time ago. The learning curve can be a difficult one for those who are particularly passionate about a subject, but that most certainly doesn't mean that he is irredeemable, and he has certainly been asking for assistance and opinions from other editors.
If he does slip backward into bad editing practices, it will become evident soon enough. A topic ban would be both premature and unnecessarily punitive.
Apologies to all for not providing diffs, but I've only just received this notification and am about to log out for the day. Should supporting diffs be needed to demonstrate Septate's willingness to work collaboratively, I'll be happy to provide them ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, also please explain, what you mean while saying that my talk page discussions are Gossips. Raising a question on talk page about some content that you feel is unnecessary does not make them gossips!Septate (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa, Septates edits certainly have been a problem in the past (systematic removal of Hinduism, rm of Muhammad pictures, edit warring). Unfortunately many of his more recent edits in June/July continue to be problematic. I will try to give some examples: Instead of removing Hinduism from articles [53] (16:45, 5 June 2014) he started to remove info about ahmadiyya (sourced) without a valid explanation: [54] 24 June 2014; [55] 13:17, 12 June 2014; [56] 12:02, 8 July 2014; [57] 13 July 2014 (ES misleading); [58] 10:52, 14 July 2014 (ES misleading); [59] 07:49, 14 July 2014; [60] 17:17, 16 July 2014; [61] 05:30, 16 July 2014.

Septates addition of images/mosques in several articles seemed to give undue weight to Islam (inappropriate size, position or number) [62] 16:16, 11 June 2014; [63] 09:13, 13 July 2014.

His changes of statistical pie charts try to single out extremely low percentages of muslim populations from "other religions" [64] 04:45, 6 June 2014; [65] 04:59, 6 June 2014 (not in source); [66] 10:14, 24 June 2014; [67] 08:41, 5 July 2014; [68] 15:47, 6 June 2014. These very small percentages are not even visible in the pie charts (UNDUE, POV-pushing?).

Other problematic edits include: unsourced addition of content [69]; changing the numbers in sourced statistical data to increase the percentage of muslims without giving another source, [70] 24 June 2014; unexplained removal of sourced statistical data [71] 17:10, 12 June 2014; [72] 13:33, 4 July 2014 (with misleading ES); [73] 05:00, 13 June 2014 and substituting recent with less recent sources or reliable with less reliable sources [74] 14:01, 21 June 2014 (with misleading ES), [75] 13:43, 30 June 2014 [76] 09:26, 1 July 2014 [77] 11:48, 16 July 2014 (with misleading ES). [78] 17:17, 16 July 2014.

At least one of his talk comments ([79]." 06:20, 21 June 2014) suggests that he might be editing to push his POV and some other comments [80] 09:22, 1 July 2014; [81] 05:59, 16 July 2014; [82] 06:52, 17 July 2014; may be interpreted as incivil or as personal attacks. Yes, Septates edits also include some constructive examples but the pattern looks disruptive to me. He seems to ignore the comments and warnings of his fellow editors (WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

I support a topic ban on Septate, if this is seen as a too harsh, I propose to follow User:NeilN`s suggestion: WP:0RR or WP:1RR and a 1 week period instead of 24 hours. JimRenge (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to [83] 24 June 2014;

[84] 13:17, 12 June 2014; [85] 12:02, 8 July 2014; [86] 13 July 2014 ; [87] 10:52, 14 July 2014 ; [88] 07:49, 14 July 2014; [89] 17:17, , as already mentioned above I made those edits because I was unable to verify those book sources. When it comes Religion in UAE, it was my fault because CIA source mentioned it but I didn't realize it. I it was my mistake and I admit it. Dispute regarding verification of book sources is also resolved, see User talk:NeilN#Please take action. NielN has assured me that he will ask peaceworld to provide quotes from book sources.

You claim regarding 16 July 2014; [90] is baseless because I made that edit after a long talk page discussion. See talk:Religion in Russia#"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source. I am busy so I will explain your rest of accusations later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talkcontribs) 16:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate: alternative proposal[edit]

Proposal. Why not place Septate under an indefinite revert limitation on all religion-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before he/she makes any content revert (including vandalism), he/she is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his/her intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.

Something similar has worked with another editor.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Toddy1's proposal. I'm counting 7 editors posting here. 5 have supported some sort of restriction (me, Toddy1, JimRenge, Bladesmulti, NeilN); one @Iryna Harpy: opposes a topic ban but doesn't say whether she supports any other restriction; the 7th editor posting being Septate himself. Toddy1's proposal seems a reasonable next step to see if Septate will become a net benefit to WP or go the other way. I would also like to see if Toddy1 and Septate would agree to formal mentoring from Toddy1.DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this proposal. I only wanted to get a quick word in on not supporting a topic ban before logging off yesterday. I'd actually like to encourage Septate to try to do some editing in non-religious subject areas of Wikipedia in order to develop a better sense of interacting with other editors/contributors without his (Septate is a he) emotional baggage triggering his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Restrictions are a useful tool, but learning to edit in an environment where he doesn't feel that he is constantly on the defensive or offensive might be a positive experience. If nothing else, it would give him a chance to develop his understanding of policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks Toddy1 for your proposal. I am totally in favour of this proposal. But how it will work? Please elaborate it. Please read my user page. I am male, so stop wasting time by writing He/She. Thanks. Septate (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Septate, suppose you make a change and someone reverts you. Before you can change the content back (waiting 48 hours) you need to open a conversation on the article's take page to explain why your edit is better and wait six hours to see if there's any response. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support JimRenge (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Want to report User: HammerFilmFan[edit]

I wan't to report User:HammerFilmFan for removing my posts in debates [91]. This have happened several times i the last week. He's obviously following me around (stalking). I will not tolerate this.--Ezzex (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified HammerFilmFan of this discussion. You would do well to provide some diffs of the conduct of which you complain. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are a log of his edits in debates [92].--Ezzex (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless you're saying that every single one of those edits is evidence of your claim, you should pick specific diffs. Even if you are claiming that every single one of those edits is inappropriate, you should pick a few example ones to illustrate what you're complaining of and what administrators should be looking for. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
See this discussion earlier this week, where User:Go Phightins! wrote " Cognizant of the fact that you have been previously warned on this topic (very recently, according to your talk page), I am going to strongly urge you to make sure that all of your edits on that topic are dedicated to the improvement of the article rather than promulgating or refuting an ideology. If you are incapable of this, my suggestion would be that you disengage from the topic area so as to avoid being blocked, which will likely happen very quickly in an area with discretionary sanctions in place." An example edit is[93] "{{pov|It looks like its written by IDF. Much jewish crap. Should not use operation-titles}}" - when this edit was cited to Ezzex his reply was "which it is". Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It still is.--Ezzex (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So it should balanced with Hamas crap? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I started the discussion earlier this week about Ezzek and ended it with asking him to just "tone it down" a bit, that was all. this is not toning it down and I would ask that he not readd this. It is completely off topic and a personal attack. English is a 2nd language, but if he can't "tone it down" to where he isn't attacking other editors and using the talk page as a forum, then he should be warned and then blocked as needed. --Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it really OK to use expressions like "Jewish crap" on WP and refuse to withdraw it? I don't think it ought to be OK.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
So you think it's ok for this creep to remove other users post and replies??--Ezzex (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, when those users are Hamas lapdog creeps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. As has been stated, the user was previously warned about racist remarks, agenda, staying on topic, etc. My edit summary when I removed the totally off-topic and intentionally provocative remark will be my comment here. Hopefully he will be constructive in the future. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ezzex has been around for about seven years, and early on established himself as an Israel-hater, so don't look for reform anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Strong accusations from a flag waving idiot.--Ezzex (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Look who's talking. Some of your first edits, seven years ago, were anti-Israel. This, for example. How you've stayed under the radar this long is hard to figure. But you've drawn a little too much attention to your activities now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
So anything that may be considered to be anti-israel is forbidden?--Ezzex (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've reported you for making personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you keep track of your own personal attack.--Ezzex (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Bugs, please do not feed the diva. --Malerooster (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the claim of "jewish crap" has not drawn a stiff sanction. Presuming (without looking) that what was removed was unbalanced pro-Israel POV, or even pro-Jewish POV, that sort of edit summary is plainly inappropriate anywhere. At best, it's inflammatory. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reporting user Middayexpress[edit]

I would like to report the user Middayexpress for always updating false info on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shukran_Hussein_Gure and always removing the correct updates that others add onto the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talkcontribs) 14:44, July 20, 2014‎ (UTC)

I've notified him. Do you have any relationship with Shukran Hussein Gure ‎and can you explain why you think File:Shukran Hussein.png is copyright free? It's identical to File:Shukran.png which was deleted earlier this week by User:Mike V. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Shukran is a close friend of mine and my representative in the kenyan parliament.The information provided by the user Middayexpress is somehow false,inaccurate and very short.As of the picture,the photo is her real photo with no any copyrighted material.For more of the said dispute the following can be use as a resolution center for facts http://www.shukran4garissa.com/ together with http://www.parliament.go.ke/plone/national-assembly/members-of-the-national-assembly/members/47884553 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talkcontribs) 15:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I note that Middayexpress called Ja'afar Aden a sock in their edit summaries, without specifying whose sock they are supposed to be, so I would request some clarification. On the other hand, it does appear as if Middayexpress' version of the page contained material that fell short of WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. 15:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request the user Middayexpress to be restricted to making changes to this page,if he/she does not respond to the allegations against him/her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talkcontribs) 15:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The Ja'afar Aden account is a WP:DUCK sock of 2001:848:0:6600:f878:b6d6:3c46:bacf. He has been disrupting the Shukran Hussein Gure page, adding identical original research using both accounts ([94], [95]). He has also twice added a copyrighted image to the page, initially claiming that the File:Shukran.png in question was his own work (the Ja'afar Aden account uploaded it, and the 2001:848:0:6600:f878:b6d6:3c46:bacf shortly afterwards added it to the page). The file was inevitably speedily deleted, so he attempted to re-add the same copyrighted image today as File:Shukran Hussein.png, with the new claim that the subject had given permission to use it on her official website. In reality, the only statement on copyright on the provided website link indicates that the material is © Copyright 2012 - 2014 [96]. This file was thus speedily deleted as well. Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That isn't a sock, per WP:SOCK. That is an IP that finally registered. That IP has never been blocked, so he wasn't avoiding scrutiny, just registering, which is something we normally encourage. Dennis Brown |  | WER
He wasn't an ip editor (that's a mobile device number) nor did he just create that account, as his contributions show [97] [98]. He has also now just admitted above to having a conflict of interest vis-a-vis the subject ("Shukran is a close friend of mine and my representative in the kenyan parliament"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Without commenting on much of anything else, that's an IPv6 address, which is announced on the contributions page itself. You don't HAVE to edit from a mobile device to have one. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I thought it may have been a Mobile IPv6. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Which is still an IP address, albeit one which shouldn't change much. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, an IP address linked to a mobile device. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I used the said ip because i was not logged in in that case.However after i noticed,i logged in continued to make the changes.It is interesting to note that all the changes i made were correct and made to make sure we maintain the right to information to the audience unlike yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talkcontribs) 15:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't make any changes. I simply reverted your original research and successive false copyright claims. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no any false copyright claims,it was just a misunderstanding.To revert changes is ok but unless the changes being reverted to are correct and trustworthy.For example there is no need to provide an arabic name of the person and no need to provide her ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talkcontribs) 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Shukran is from the Ogaden Darod clan, an ethnic Somali clan that traces descent to the Yemeni patriarch Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti. Surely you already knew this as her self-described friend. As for her Somali ethnicity in general, it certainly is relevant per WP:CATEGRS ("Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people"). I also fail to see how claiming that the file was your own work when it isn't is a misunderstanding. Middayexpress (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Want to report User: Drmargi[edit]

Kitchen Nightmares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to report User: Drmargi for blatantly harassing new editors making comments in the Talk:Kitchen Nightmares page, and deleting their comments without so much as shred of proof. Constructive posts and suggestions have been deleted with the new editors being called names and made scapegoats for past problems with the page. This editor also has a pattern of visiting other editor's pages to push his or her agenda on this page.58.168.101.160 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This IP has previously posted multiple times to Talk:Kitchen Nightmares using multiple IPs, from the 58.168.x and 120.14x pools, both of which are allocated to Telstra BigPond, an Australian ISP. He is thought to be a sock of Roman888, a banned editor. Drmargi warned me recently on my talk page that he was back.[99] --AussieLegend () 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let me introduce Roman888, a community banned user and serial IP sockpuppet. Every so often, he turns up, starts a fuss at the Kitchen Nightmares articles, is called on his nonsense and disappears. Pay him no mind; he'll get bored soon. --Drmargi (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Let me state for the record and on behalf of all new editors that have been unfairly blamed for Roman888's past transgressions, that this unfair blatant harassment is not productive and DrMargi has been seen deleting new editor's posts using the pretext that they are a sockpuppet or disruptive editor. Drmargi is also seen canvassing other people's talk pages and accusing new editors of being this Roman sockpuppet. It is in the interest of other new editors that Drmargi is to be reprimanded for his or her abusive behaviour to other new editors.58.168.101.160 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The above statement is technically known as a "non-denial denial". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This is classic Roman888. Notice he's made no effort to actually edit the article. He never does, just stir the shit on the talk page. The from there, he rapidly accelerates the drama. He has a sizable collection of socks and suspected socks in this IP pool, and should be accorded as little attention as possible. --Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of interest 58.168.101.160 is this in the same manner that youve been canvassing editors talkpages to ask them to look into Drmargi's behaviour. Amortias (T)(C) 17:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Amortias, this is what he does every time he turns up. He leaves some post or another moaning about Kitchen Nightmares (never making an effort to actually edit the article), is called out as Roman888 (always transparent, because of the technical data AussieLegend notes above, always geolocating in and around Sydney) and then the drama begins as the ducks quack in legion. As I noted at the SPI filing, this thread is a new flourish but right in character, as is the noted tendency to redirect attention away from evidence against him by drawing attention to another user, usually me. This thread is a waste of time, editor effort and bandwidth. --Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if I am complaining on other editor's talk pages, it doesn't distract from the manner this person has been making baseless accusations against new editors. Plus this Drmargi has the guile to post on people's pages his or her suspicions of that editor being a sockpuppet. Look as his or her latest posting on Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares. So where is the evidence and fairness in all of this?58.168.101.160 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, and who are you to make that assumption. Do you pronounced that all people are guilty, especially new editors? -- 58.168.101.160 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 20 July 2014
Each time you posted here 58 there was a big yellow box stating that you MUST inform DM about this thread. You have managed to ignore it so I have informed DM. The fact of the matter is that a) you have provided no evidence to back up your accusations and b) this does not belong here and it should be closed ASAP. If you have a problem you should file a WP:RFCU. MarnetteD|Talk 17:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't need to inform him or her about this noticeboard, seeing this editor will find a way to this noticeboard. Its this person's suspicious mind that leads him or her to make baseless accusations about new editors in other people's talk pages and noticeboards.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you do need to inform him or her about this noticeboard. If you're going to participate as a constructive, collaborative editor, that means following guidelines—including the one that says to notify any editor reported here about the report. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
All right if you say that is so, then I admit I was wrong there. There is no ulterior motive in not informing Drmargi about this noticeboard thread as suggested by the other editor. All I want is that Drmargi is censured for his or her actions.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I didn't say you were guilty of anything, I only said your comment waa a non-denial denial. But if you've got a guilty conscience, well... And it is kind of odd that Roman's IP socks seem to emanate from Sydney. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So are you going to accuse all new editors with Sydney IP addresses of being sockpuppets. How silly is that assumption and this is why that Drmargi has that other editor User:AussieLegend believing the same baseless accusations.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've had to deal with you before.[100] You change IPs to suit your needs. --AussieLegend () 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Please also notice that Drmargi will always canvass User:AussieLegend's talk page and who will be swayed by his or her baseless accusations.58.168.101.160 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SPI filed at [101]. Hopefully we can put this to rest soon, and close as MarnetteD suggests. --Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you see what I am getting at? Don't like someone's post, put a sockpuppet investigation and abusing the the SPI process at the same time.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
SPIs can prove people innocent, too; if you're not Roman888, you really have nothing to worry about. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No: SPIs don't address IP addresses in any technical sense. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Although he's blocked now, I want to make one last point, just for the record: notice Roman never explicitly denies who he is, but hedges around it. As soon as he pops up, I immediately begin referring to him as Roman on the KN talk page, and he never denies it. He just gets into this sort of snit, and plays his games. --Drmargi (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • IP blocked for a little while. After comparing with some of Roman's earlier whines on the talk page, it seems pretty clear to me (from tone and poor grammar) that this is the same editor. If they return to that talk page, we can always semi-protect it. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! His grammar is a dead give-away. He's Malaysian, so English isn't his first language, and it shows at times. He didn't start socking until he relocated to OZ. There's a copyvio case against him somewhere, and Moodriddengirl and her team spent hours cleaning up after him on Malaysia related articles, in addition to the KN/RKN messes. Unfortunately, he'll probably hop to a new IP sock shortly. His tenure at the latest one is about as long as he lasts before he hops again. --Drmargi (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Although 58.168.101.160 is blocked, the editor is likely to return under another IP, as he did after his last edits using 58.168.51.144 were reverted. --AussieLegend () 04:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Having dragged this here, the sockmaster has cleverly raised awareness of his behavior, so he'll be on a lot more users' radar now. And with the sockmaster having been banned and not merely indef'd, any edits he makes are subject to removal on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou, this is better. Shabratha (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 full protection[edit]

I believe this discussion was prematurely closed and I am reopening it. I believe that @Nyttend misused his powers in fully protecting this article and THEN making massive changes to the article without evidence of consensus for those changes. There was simply far too much cited material deleted in one single edit to say that there was clear consensus for removal with respect to all of that. If one is going to fully protect an article, one should either recuse oneself from editing or at at a minimum restrict oneself to clearly non-controversial editing. After the community objected to one of the elements of the removal, Nyttend put it back, but I object to the idea that we have to muster on the Talk page community consensus to undo, one by one, every element of Nyttend's edit. The Talk page is already difficult to use because editor traffic is being diverted off the article itself by the protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian fails to observe that I removed it because of agreement at the talk page; I took no actions (aside from housekeeping such as adding a period) at the article without consensus at the talk page. He also takes this restoration as me being forced to do something, ignoring the fact that I removed it simply for space reasons (too many images were present) and that I promised I'd put back if anyone could suggest a good place to put it. Brian's made this baseless accusation here and at the article's talk page; making serious accusations without solid evidence is considered a personal attack. He might also want to start complying with WP:GBU, If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. Nobody's said anything of the sort at my talk page, and all I've seen of Brian's words are implying or (as here) directly accusing me of involved editing. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This isn't just about you, if it were, I would have titled the section with your name. I also don't agree with the admin who closed the earlier thread on this page about the article without giving the community more of an opportunity to weigh in. If you wanted this dealt with on the article Talk page why didn't you respond to me when I started the "Full protection should not be applied" thread? Why did you put that image back if you were acting on consensus when you removed it? You apparently don't think consensus is required to remove large amounts of material if, in your opinion, the removal is warranted for "space reasons". Well I'm of the opinion it most definitely IS required when so much of what you removed is evidence that incriminates the Kremlin. Are you prepared to go line by line through your editing with me and point out to me, for each line, where you found your supporting consensus? In other words, I'd like to see you back up your claims of consensus in detail because I don't believe they are true.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The 05:11 comment by User RGloucester about "deleting the "whole mess" seemed to tip the balance, but then when Nyttend saw the comment by Isaidnoway at 05:16, he was wholly convinced. There were protests 13 minutes later. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Brian, you complain about the talk page being difficult to use, but now that the same traffic is back to editing the article, IT is difficult to use, so that argument is invalid. So is the argument that people disagreed. People always disagree with full protection because their edits are right and everyone else's edits are wrong, and full protection always gets protests from some. The purpose in using it is not because it is popular, but to prevent abuses. Your claim that he made massive changes is unfounded. All edits made were based on consensus from the talk page from my observation, and the fact that material was added back demonstrates this. I would also note that protection was lifted improperly. As this article falls under WP:ARBEE, I'm wondering if an admin needs to implement 1RR. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"to prevent abuses" like what? Editing against consensus? Because that's exactly what full protection enabled here. How does some of that material getting added back after the community complained about its removal demonstrate that there was consensus for its removal in the first place? It demonstrates the exact opposite: it shouldn't have been removed in the first place, especially by the same party who just went and locked down the article! It is absolutely not true that there was consensus for all of those changes. Show me the consensus to remove "Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew," just to take an example. Would you care to count all the citations that were removed in that one single post-lockdown edit I linked to?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Brian, it means he made an edit according to what he thought the consensus was, people complained, he fixed it. Admin do the best we can, that doesn't mean we don't make errors. If an admin makes an error and WON'T fix it, then complain. The way you describe it, Full Protection is always abuse, so all this discussion seems pointless. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it was not fixed. A 105K article was cut down to 82K in one fell swoop, and you call a 0.6K add back a fix? Do I also think full protection needs a very good reason? Yes, I do, I shouldn't have to apologize for that when Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be a reason, you just disagree that the reasoning met the threshold. The amount of cut isn't the issue, the content is. If mistakes were made, you only had to say so. I was working the page, I would have looked at it, or others who were patrolling. A number of admin were patrolling, so no editor was getting ignored. Keep in mind, most of the time when an article is full protected, admin walk away until a consensus is found, as the protection is over a single issue. In this case (and similar) there has been at least one admin around helping out, doing the best they can. I know because I've been one of those admin for many hours last night and today. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Would the removal of full protection without discussion fall under WP:WHEELWAR? I'll formally notify User:Lowellian as well as pinging him here. --John (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Protection was always intended to be limited in duration, not forever, and there was suggestion on the talk page of specifically 12 hours. I waited 20 hours before unprotecting. Even the admin who protected the page in the first place, User:Nyttend, defended my action further below in this page, writing: "Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for." Furthermore, there was discussion: extensive opposition to the full protection by many editors raised on the talk page and here on WP:ANI, to whose concerns I was responding. I did not wheel war; I allowed protection, intended to be temporary in the first place, to lapse after a period of time. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It isn't wheel warring, it was just a really bad decision, and frankly, done in an arrogant way as he just waltzed in and unprotected after not working the article previously. We at least had a discussion on protection, even if many disagreed with the conclusion. His solution was just to start blocking people, something we've been trying to avoid. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The really bad decision was full protection in the first place, a decision made quickly with very little discussion, over significant opposition, and one that punishes all editors, most of whom are not disruptive, and which is against the spirit of Wikipedia, which distinguishes itself from other encyclopedias on the principle that its articles are editable. Re: "after not working the article previously": That is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It seems obvious to me that protection is better than blocking. Surely it is that simple? --John (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • While that seems obvious to you and I, not every admin agrees with that. Blocks are cheap and easy plus you get to walk away. Protection is hard and requires you are willing to help others. From an editor retention perspective, protection is an obvious choice. People get frustrated, revert too much, human nature and all that. Protection removes the temptation and forces cooperation. But you already knew that. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Lowellian didn't just "waltz in". Unlike you, he first participated in the thread I started calling for protection to be lifted. My I point out that POLICY says "persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others"?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, waltzed in. Protection review is at WP:RFPP or even at WP:AN, with the whole goal of getting uninterested eyes on it. As an admin, I can assure you it was inappropriate by any measure. That it worked to your advantage is meaningless in regards to admin expectations. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yet you just complained about "uninterested eyes" coming to the article when you counted it as a stroke against Lowellian that he hadn't previously "work[ed] the article," did you not? There was also already a thread here on this AN where editors had objected to the protection before Lowellian lifted it. As a non-admin, I can assure that it was entirely appropriate to lift full protection off an article that the community never wanted fully protected, especially when the party who applied that protection is intentionally or unintentionally making controversial and disputed edits while under protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course you agree, that is what you wanted to happen. My point is that a contentious lifting of protection is supposed to happen at a public board where the public can opine. This isn't my opinion, this is policy and why the boards exist. It is flatly improper to do it the way he did for a contentious unprotect. I'm talking about a policy issue, not just about getting your way. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"public can opine" Yes, so why weren't opinions solicited before protection was applied? And more importantly for the extensive changes that were made while the article was under protection? Why was the "vote" above, terminated before it even got going? Go over to the article Talk page and announce an opinion call on whether to fully protect and keep that open for 24 hours. If this isn't about "getting your way" then back off and let the community weigh in. Until then, what I quoted to you out of Wikipedia's protection policy should govern.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There was a public discussion Brian. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
No, there was not public discussion more extensive that the discussion you dismiss, that being the discussion that preceded and supported Lowellian freeing up the article. This could be settled if you'd give up your admin prerogatives and agree that henceforth the community will be invited to opine on the question (an invitation that remains open for 24 hours) before applying full protection and the admin corps will abide by the verdict. Why is it that throughout this thread the only party that has quoted Wikipedia policy on page protection is myself?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Brian, you are being obtuse and I just don't have time for it now. Even to suggest waiting 24 hours to protect an article just shows you have no clue how policy works here, and there are more productive things I could be doing, so I will. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I have "no clue" how policy works around here, yet I can quote it and you can't? I've been editing Wikipedia longer than you have but in your books I just fell off the turnip wagon? If it is such an emergency to slap full protection on this then why aren't you? You've lost a couple precious hours here already! As near as I can tell, you aren't doing so because ultimately you know that there is a legitimate disagreement here, unlike most cases of page protection. As such, the community has a role here.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @John: If you are taking fifty different editors which will make a few edits each, that adds up to a lot. When you fully protect the article because of two editors, you severely impede improvements. You might not be able to see that as well because you are a sysop, but it is true. Dustin (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Anything but full protection for this article right now is just bone-headed. Not only does the enormous amount of traffic make it basically impossible to edit properly, but it also causes problems when editors edit-conflict and then in the course of solving it delete other information. In addition, these NEWS magnets attract all kinds of...well...unencyclopedic information. I understand that regular editors don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions, but when it comes to these current events, it's the best thing to do--I speak from experience, and I have about as much as John. But what bothers me most (since the article and the talk page have attracted a number of experienced and trustworthy editors) is the cavalier attitude of Lowellian, who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away. I support full protection for a couple of days. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm a regular editor and I don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions. BUT, I like even LESS having to police the article and deal with a horde of clueless IPs, SPA accounts, battleground warriors, sleeper sock accounts and other disruptive nonsense. Which is what has happened with EVERY article related to the Ukrainian conflict, what has already happened to this article and given that this topic is getting a lot more international/media attention (for obvious reasons) the reasonable expectation is that it will be even worse here. Hence, agree with Drmies that full protection is the best of a set of bad alternatives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Full protection is what is bone-headed, and not just bone-headed, but heavy-handed: it is a lazy response that punishes all editors for the actions of a disruptive few. And re: "Who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away..." Again, as I wrote earlier, that I was not heavily involved in the article is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, or thereafter became heavily involved in editing the article, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As a comment, I have seen articles on past big events (specifically the boston marathon bombing and the Sandy Hook school shooting) developed just fine at the onset of the event with semi-prot. The rate of info can be an edit conflict problem but it's normal and not disruptive. I realize that this article is a much larger incident that is already attracting its fair-share of fringe theories, but the combination of semi-prot and firm editing cautions to remove users that are specifically there to be disruptive should be good. Full protection should not be used to making editing easier (due to fewer E/Cs), that's a bad way to use the tool. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, but it's a nice fringe benefit. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No, it's a lazy use of protection where it is not needed. It's a lot more work, but we are truer to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" by keeping it open. Only if it was the case that a lot of misinformation was being added by established editors would full protection be required. As RG says below, this is where pending changes would be better. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There's in fact an interesting discussion to be had about this "fringe benefit". But it's a discussion that has to be had before it becomes policy. In my view, the need for admin intervention is lower the more editor eyeballs there are on an article. In this case, we've got enough editors that the "good guys" shouldn't need help against the bad guys. This isn't a case of local neglect where there isn't enough of the community involved to express and enforce the community view. If bad actors, outside the consensus, are dominating then by a pro-wiki definition they are probably actually good guys because the fringe shouldn't be able to dominate a highly trafficked article.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I must say, as I did before, that this is the perfect place to use pending changes level 2 protection. RGloucester 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think not. Pending changes ends up being a confusing mess when rapid editing by multiple users is involved. I think there is a place for PC2, but this isn't it in my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: IMO while not technically wrong, indef is not the best duration for an article. If you don't know how long a page needs to be protected surely you could make that assessment within 3 hours, or 12 and update accordingly. While it's not wheel warring in this case (because the intent was to seek someone else to reduce the time), it's harder to avoid stepping on your toes if someone realizes you've misjudged the time than if you protected the page for a short amount of time. For a quickly evolving event (which sees a huge percentage of our positive new editor interactions) and has a lot of long term editors watching, that reassessment needs to come quickly. It's a recipe for wheel warring. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    It would be appreciated if you would educate yourself on the situation, because then you'd realise that I asked for this to happen. I asked for a reduction in time, telling people that they should reduce it because I didn't know, and still don't know, how long we normally do this. Nobody's yet told me how long we normally protect such pages. Please observe that wheel warring consists of a combative situation, not one in which the first admin says "Please reverse me when you think it's appropriate". Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    I understand the situation and I noted that you asked for this to happen. My point is that there's no way you could look at indef full protection of an article and say "this never needs to change." If you hadn't asked for review or you had gone to work or something then rather than wait for the protection to expire (over what should've been a short period) they have to divine your intent and reverse your decision. If this is your first time protecting these high traffic, time sensitive articles then maybe what you should do is consider my comment as a suggestion of best practices. Next time you protect an article like this (or really any article), think about making admin actions where a review from an admin who agrees with your intervention has to do nothing. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought I know that this is probably not going to be a popular idea, but perhaps it's time to read one of the Eastern Europe Riot acts (WP:EEML, WP:ARBEE, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes) of the page and talk page to arm the discretionary sanctions trigger. I observe that there are several editors with ties to the cases involved, in addition to being Eastern Europe, in addition to the active conflict area (vis-a-vis Russia/Ukraine). While I know brandishing such a tool will only stifle the improvement of the article, I feel that the rapid fire and heated changes are not improvements to the talk page/article. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

      • EE needs templates, something I'm not adept at. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: According to my research fu, it appears the Eastern Europe omnibus case code is e-e. The Discretionary Sanctions template family can be reached from {{Ds}}. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, I'm not sure what you're talking about. EE discretionary sanctions apply to the article by default. The only concern is that some users may not be aware of them, in which case they need to be notified, as soon as their behavior becomes potentially problematic. There's no "trigger" to be "armed". Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek The sanctions can't be actively enforced until the notice has been given. The act of giving the notice (especially at pages that are patently within the scope of the sanctions) has the prophylactic effect of encouraging all users to straighten up and behave lest a wandering admin proscribe a sanction. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Full protection is a poor choice for preventing edit wars because it also blocks legitimate editors. More can be done about an edit war than just slapping a lock on it. DS applies here, and so do ordinary blocks and warnings for edit warring. 2 editors should not hold an entire article hostage, especially with a quickly developing story like this. KonveyorBelt 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Young earth creationist pov-pusher repeatedly violating copyright[edit]

Indeffed for copyvio by Diannaa; offending edits reverted. (Non-admin close) G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Hwahl90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding material stolen from Genesis Park, Creation.com, and probably other sites. He has been warned by Dougweller, and me. Dougweller and I have both explained (beyond the template) that we simply do not accept material directly copied from other sites, even if he got "permission." And yet he keeps adding copyvio material.

Trying to explain WP:NPOV to him, I get the impression that he's WP:NOTHERE to summarize mainstream publications, but promote fringe creationist beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for copyright violations and cleaned up all his edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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


Sockpuppetry and edit warring.[edit]

Resolved: Account blocked two weeks and IP block extended to matcH

I first became aware of the New Jersey-based IP 67.83.61.170 after reading an AIV report that complained of them continuing to add and replace contractions (ex: cannot --> can't) to articles in spite of numerous warnings. While looking through their edits, I spotted some of their edits at List of double albums. In these 15 edits the user added content that appeared to be original research and which also struck me as indiscriminate, as I don't understand what value knowing that various double-albums can fit on a single CD has, encyclopedically. I removed the content. The IP reverted my edit with no explanation. I opened a discussion on the talk page, reverted the original research, and directly invited the IP to the talk page discussion. Rx4evr appeared suddenly and reverted me again, stating, "I did the math & CD'S Hold up to 79:57 of music. So back off." I reverted again, so I'm at my limit. The named user has been active since at least 2008, so they should understand the rules. I also noticed that in 2008 they'd been accused of sockpuppetry and geographically linked to New Jersey IPs. So now there appears to be sockpuppetry, an attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP, asserting their worldview without participating in BRD, and my OR objections are now confirmed as OR with the "I did the math" comment. Would appreciate some admin eyes here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's blatantly obvious that the IP is User:Rx4evr who is using a mixture of logged-in and out edits to continue edit-warring to insert unsourced material and likely original research into articles. I'd warned RX4evr about this disruptive editing previously and they appear to have ignored my warning completely. I've blocked the account for two weeks and extended the block Daniel Case made on the IP to match.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ponyo! I assume I'm clear to remove the cruft since the contributing user is disruptive, ignores WP:OR and is disinterested in discussion to achieve consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's unsupported and appears to be their own original research and they'd rather revert than join the discussion you started on the talk page; there's more harm in having it in the article than out so I'd say go ahead and remove it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Danke. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

92.222.153.153[edit]

Can someone block Special:Contributions/92.222.153.153. It's probably Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Materialscientist:...now it's Special:Contributions/62.244.31.16. There may be more in the pipeline I guess until he gets bored. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, blocked, the third one (not mentioned above) blocked too. The talk page temporarily s-protected as well. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And another one Special:Contributions/190.199.79.135. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Blocked and those two article s/protected. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Death threat? from 112.175.69.140[edit]

By 112.175.69.140 (talk · contribs)
On my talk page here 4x and multiple times
I'm not putting a ANI notice on the IP's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably associated with the ANI immediately above Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) Death threat or no death threat... This should be blockworthy if he had offered you flowers instead. Kleuske (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
IP blocked by FPAS; I've protected Jim's talkpage (since this fellow has a habit of reappearing with a new IP every two minutes). Yunshui  10:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Yunshui: I don't mind acting as a lightning rod. I'd rather my friend be vandalizing my pages than articles or other's talk pages. Jim1138 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Same on my talkpage. I've s/protected that as well until our puerile friend gets bored. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy has now moved to Special:Contributions/190.38.118.55 + Special:Contributions/190.72.192.21 Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Again, both blocked. Could someone more knowledgable than me check if these and the earlier IPs are proxies? They're in different countries from the earlier ones and it would fit our friend's MO. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
112.175.69.140 port 3128, and 190.72.192.21 port 8080, they are open and usable. I extended the 8080 to a year, Fut Perf. already blocked the other for webhost, which is close enough. Dennis Brown |  | WER 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Nailed the other two as well, ports 8080. Dennis Brown |  | WER 11:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Getting close to time to take this to law enforcement, and in my view should they begin naming names, the line is going to crossed. Jusdafax 11:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And 181.198.187.133, ostensibly in Ecuador. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Port 80 was an open proxy, and with a Captcha system to prevent abuse, which I find ironic. 1 year blocked. Dennis Brown |  | WER 12:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

He's moved to Special:Contributions/186.91.64.115 and now he is damaging content. Please semi-protect every single page he edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, and I've assumed it's another open proxy. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A rangeblock is under consideration here.  —SMALLJIM  16:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Block needed[edit]

Michelle47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is using a script to spam User talk:Sean.hoyland with (so far as I am aware) false accusations about anti-Semitic attacks. If, by some weird circumstance, her claims were legitimate, the actions still warrant a cool-down block. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I'm sure you already know this, but it's usually best to avoid describing it as a cool down block.—LucasThoms 00:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, ten null edits and then spamming the same personal attack on the same talk page several dozen times seems pretty blockable. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It is most likely this guy Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Reported him here, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It is, he's blocked, talkpage protected, please WP:DENY. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Back again as 190.198.91.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) , Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
...and 186.88.232.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) , Huldra (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Both blocked. Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Also 190.79.128.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Electric Wombat (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now he is on my talk-page, rev-dels needed, please? And block of s 190.72.30.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Huldra (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Now as 186.88.64.47, on User talk:Zero0000. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
And under an attack-username I will not cite here. Obvious on the page history of abovementioned talkpage, however. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Account-name created at 1.36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/newusers User talk:Malik Shabazz under attck. Huldra (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
and 186.89.187.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Huldra (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is part of what is filed at WP:SPI for a quick check. I already did a /17 rangeblock, but it needs more and I'm off to bed and have a busy day tomorrow. It needs someone who knows how to block ranges to do anon blocks on a dozen or so ranges, which means doing homework, and I just don't have the time for at least 16 hours. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Another sock [103] ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy aka JarlaxleArtemis is back

Any page he touches needs to be semi-protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would extend that to some talk pages as well. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And More Nonsense[edit]

Posting here as well as AIV: [104] ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More eyes needed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/newusers, block and rev-del abusive user-names, please, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen at least one ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 08:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh, we all got them, take it a very special barnstar... I do! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Khan Yunis ...the article, that is, is now under attack. Check: 190.75.228.58 and 186.88.199.183 Huldra (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Heres another Sean.hoyland paid propgandist 4 EI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 09:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
More JA ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 10:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More from Special:Contributions/190.203.98.221. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More JA ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 10:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"I will kill you, evil piece of shit", a direct death threat against a named person, so Jeremy has probably just broken Californian law. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

He's already violated a half-dozen federal (US) laws. But I'll leave that up to the Foundation. I don't place too much faith in his nonsense. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 10:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: He Also Called Sean a "Nazi Subhuman" in his edit summary. This Getting Slightly out of hand. TF { Contribs } 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Article was protected a few hours ago, and I've now revdeled that edit summary. Monty845 15:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


This has been quiet for a while now, I think the range blocks placed seems to have solved the issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In future situations, it would be best to not repost the concerning sentences in the diff links as this defeats the purpose of using revision deletion. Mike VTalk 20:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 (Doc James) reported by User:Technophant for wikihounding and tendentious editing[edit]

User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Acupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

  • Note - This complaint was copied from a withdrawn 3RR complaint and may have spurious information


Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Referred itch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [105]
  2. [106]
  3. [107] (rm link to free url for content that didn't exist, uncalled for)
  4. [108] tendentious

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110] (User has not edited talk page section.)

Comments:
User is removing cleanup tags without proper justification or discussion, tendentious editing, and wikihounding.

I believe user is acting out of bias and anger and is not trying to improve WP. I'm trying to nip this one in the bud before it escalates. - - Technophant (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User also warned me of copy/paste when the edit clearly did not violate copvio due to its simplicity. He also threatened my editing privileges. Clearly another attempt to hound me. - Technophant (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup when you copy and past text exactly from a source such as you did in this edit [111] with text from the Washington Post [112] you get warnned. And than you return the text without sufficiently paraphrasing it here [113] Gah. Also difs number 121 and 122 are exactly the same edit.
Ah and this edit [114] while you see as I have already explained it was already linked via the pmc= parameter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Previous edit warring notices pertaining to Techno in the last two days

(edit conflict)I took the phrase "The American Medical Association (AMA) takes no position specifically on acupuncture." from the article without paraphrasing. This sentence is too simple to qualify of WP:COPYVIO (try reading it). I then paraphrased it as "While the American Medical Association (AMA) has publicly taken no position specifically on acupuncture, in 1997 they released a statement saying..." and say I didn't "sufficiently paraphrase it"? What??
(edit conflict)I added a link to a free full text of the article which wasn't present. The doi= or pmc= only gives an abstract and paywall. I'm beginning to think that you follow my contributions and seek to revert any and every edit possible. - Technophant (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Go to ref 226 in the notes section of the Lyme disease article [115]. Click on the PMC or the article name and guess where it brings you? And it is not the abstract and paywall. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. [116]
  2. [117]

I would like to propose a one year topic ban from alt med of Techno widely construed due to his disruptive editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In this edit they deleted some of my comments [118]. They did the same thing here [119] and here [120] they edit my user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I see no problems with Doc James's edits. As he said in the edit summary, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyme_disease&oldid=617830342&diff=prev this was not necessary because the PMID ref url automatically gets generated if the ref tag is filled out properly. I think I hear the sound of a WP:BOOMERANG whirring in the distance....also, Support topic ban of Technophant from alt me articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, now I see what you mean. PMID links to full free text on NIH. I thought it just linked to an abstract like doi does. I guess I learned something. Being that Doc James has reverted at least a dozen of my edits in the last hour I thought that this was just another attack. Apologies. - Technophant (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
We have another report at 3RR here [121] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That 3RR report was created by by Mrbill3 and contains NOTHING that wasn't covered by previous investigations. Nice try. - Technophant (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Response to 3RR reports:

  1. not blocked, not found in violation of 3RR, page protected.
  2. not blocked, not found in violation of 3RR, page protected, mutual edit warring.

Please note that Doc James was a participant in both incidents and was tendentious. - Technophant (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The filer of this motion would be advised to read WP:BOOMERANG. I see from your contributions that you seem to be on some sort of tear in trying to get alternative medicine articles to conform to your perspective. jps (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt Med Topic Ban for Technophant?[edit]

Sometimes editors get a bee in their bonnet. I think this is the case here. This filing follows up a few other WP:FORUMSHOPs: [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], and so forth....

jps (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree to a voluntary short-term topic ban as long as Doc James gets one as well. - Technophant (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The proposal here isn't for editors to accept voluntary topic bans, but rather community-imposed WP:CBANs. And why would it be appropriate for Doc James to stop editing Alt Med when between the two of you only your behavior is topic ban-worthy. Zad68 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

(edit conflict) I did this. Why all the case building? I want an answer regarding the wikihounding. Harassing other users should never be acceptable. - Technophant (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that if you simply stopped editing articles relating to alternative medicine you would find that whatever wikihounding you think you experienced would probably end. jps (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You have been instructed that the repetition of charges of "wikihounding" and "harassment" are both a personal attack and a gross lack of AGF, yet you dare to repeat it here. That takes audacity and foolishness to a new level. With that attitude you really don't belong here at all. Any "harassment" has been the proper attention paid by other editors who encounter disruptive editing patterns and uncollaborative habits. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban for Technophant on altmed articles - the tendentious editing and dramatics have created a severe time sink and shows no sign of abating. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Techophant editor's behavior has been extensively tendentious, there does not appear to be a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia. Multiple respected editors have made good faith efforts to the point of exhaustion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban to curb their aggressive tendentious editing, forum-shopping, game-playing, and other disruptive behavior. Note that although a topic ban could be placed under WP:ARBPS, this discussion is regarding a higher level of ban, a community-imposed WP:CBAN that would only be able to be overturned by the community. Zad68 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that Ohnoitsjamie registered a support vote for a topic ban in the section above. Zad68 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Techophant not here to improve things. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban of Technophant either indefinitely or for at least six months (jumping straight to an indefinite topic ban if he resumes the problematic behavior after the ban is over). The POV-pushing against mainstream medicine, forum-shopping, long-term edit warring, and gaming of 3RR are unacceptable to begin with, but it's pretty hard to assume good-faith from his nomination to topic ban a mainstream medical doctor from medical articles. Best case scenario, it still indicates Technophant isn't paying attention to why he's in trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: no position on the topic ban, though I would lean toward support. However, I will say that this diff provided above shows a remarkable lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT: changing to support due to the below. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for obvious reasons. Not here to build a high quality encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Technophant. The retaliatory proposal below combined with the above diffs shows a lack of the maturity necessary for collaborative editing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Techophant is clearly incapable of contributing usefully in this topic area. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The retaliatory proposal below seals the deal. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban. We do not need more time sinks in this contentious area. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indef ALTMED topic ban. Here to POV-push consensus or not. Jim1138 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite ALTMED topic ban, very clearly does not even attempt to abide by consensus. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The edits by User:Technophant did not improve the CAM related articles. This is the same behaviour as the recently confirmed sock Milliongoldcoinpoint. I think a SPI report will clarify the matter. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indef ALTMED topic ban, user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and cannot follow simple rules. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban. We're also dealing with lack of competence. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no need to make MEDRS stranglehold on Wikipedia even worse. The Banner talk 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt Med Topic Ban for Doc James?[edit]

WP:SNOW. Monty845 15:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I would like to propose a one week topic ban from alt med of Doc James widely construed due for wikihounding. He may be well respected in the community, however past good deeds do not excuse bad recent ones. Letting him go unpunished sends the wrong message and could cause an editor, like myself, to abandon Wikipedia altogether. I guess it all comes down not to what you do, but who you know. - Technophant (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, maybe someone should SNOW close this. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - though this pointed proposal is a perfect example of why your own ban is merited. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose per GSP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Diffs? Can't support this proposal without a clear reference to a behavior guideline and supporting diffs, otherwise it appears to be just more game-playing/battleground behavior by Technophant. I note that WP:HOUNDING says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." which appears to be what Doc had to do in this case. Zad68 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question What kind of sanctions are typically handed down for wikihounding? - Technophant (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question What kind of sanctions are typically handed down for tendentious editors not getting that good editors fixing their stubborn screw ups isn't the same as wikihounding? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's not wikihounding. Meanwhile, I am curious how the editor Technophant, who until four days ago had shown no interest in this topic, suddenly became an edit warrior on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No way in hell This should be wp:SNOWBALL closed. A quick scan of T's contribs makes it clear: Technophant has a misconceived mission to right wp:GREATWRONGS in wp's coverage of altmed by balancing reliable sources against new, less-reliable ones. DocJames was just keeping the damage in check. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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


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


Baba Shah Jamal vandalism[edit]

IP blocked by Dennis Brown for vandalism. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 23:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User talk:117.20.21.230 has been attacking the page Baba Shah Jamal with Soapbox rants and spam links. Is there any way to protect this article from this particular user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biochembob (talkcontribs) 19:47, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I've reported the IP to WP:AIV for persistent spamming after being warned. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
AIV is the right place, but I went ahead and took care of it since I was in the neighborhood. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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



Melaleuca, Inc[edit]

Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing across multiple pages, including edit warring and personal attacks.- by Bbb23 ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Can some others review Melaleuca, Inc and the editing by CombatThisss (talk · contribs)].

The article was deleted many years ago as it showed no notability outside of the founder. The new article does not overcome that fundamental issues that resulted in it being turned into a redirect. I have repeatedly requested that they establish that consensus has changes, as well as recommending the use of Draft name-space to develop the article.

Instead, the user has assumed bad-faith by twice making false accusations of me editing with a COI [127][128]; as well as disputing my admin abilities and threatening desysoping should I continue with my so-called "disruption" of reverting his edits.[129]

Granted, the original AfD is several years old, so it's quite possible that consensus has changed. This can always go through AfD again to establish if consensus has changed - although it would have been better to clear these issues up first via talk page discussion at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot and/or a draft space article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing across multiple pages, including edit warring and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
[hm, edit conflict with Bbb23] I think it shouldn't be subjected to the AFD's conclusions; as you say, that was several years ago, and anyway this guy seems to be promoting a perspective of "the founder's an evil Republican, and the company oppresses its workers" (see how he criticised "your COI in support of Melaleuca"), making it very far from the pro-company ad that was deleted at AFD. With that in mind, we need to address the guy's anti-company and anti-founder POV and his response to you. Let me talk to him, semi-sternly, and we'll see what reaction I get. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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


Failure to follow accessibility guidelines[edit]

GeorgeLouis is failing to follow where TOC is placed in articles in respect to accessibility guidelines.

  • WP:LEADORDER states, Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading.
  • WP:TOC states, Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing..
  • WP:LEADORDER states An image's caption is part of the article text. If the article has disambiguation links (dablinks), then the introductory image should appear just before the introductory text. Otherwise a screen reader would first read the image's caption, which is part of the article's contents, then "jump" outside the article to read the dablink, and then return to the lead section, which is an illogical sequence.

I first talked with him in February. I have talked on his talk page for the past couple of months. I have shown him a message on my talk page. Page also contains this message.

Last go around on his talk page started because he added the TOC in the wrong spot on several articles. He has done it again or adds TOCs in his own special way.

GeorgeLouis' replies have stated Wikipedia:There are no rules as the reason not to follow MOS. Fine. Once there is consensus to remove WP:There are no rules as a WP:policy I might reconsider. In the meantime, "There are no rules."

GeorgeLouis is not the only one that isn't understanding. The definition of "can" is one reason given for not following TOC placement in this case.

I'm at wits end. At this point I consider it disruptive editing of somesort. I don't know what to do. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. I always put the TOC after the first paragraph. What is the big deal? Get off my back, and let me have my enjoyment. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Here the correct solution to get rid of whitespace would be to remove the {{-}}, which is overused IMO. Keep in mind that people use wildly different window sizes, and while the software's placement of the TOC may not be perfect, it's better than trying to hardcode for one window size. --NE2 06:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@GeorgeLouis: Compliance with the accessibility guidelines (and web accessibility standards) is a very big deal. Making things needlessly hard for the blind and vision-impaired isn't particularly virtuous. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@GeorgeLouis:: Your 'enjoyment' is literally of no importance whatever to Wikipedia as a project. The provision of information to as wide a range of users as possible, including those with visual impairments, on the other hand, is very important to it. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(Redacted) I think enjoyment is an important part of the Wikipeida project, without it there would be very few editors. There is of course no reason why GeorgeLouis can not enjoy editing and sill contribute to articles accessible to all. -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Please retract the accusation that I am a paid editor. I've been here a decade and never had a farthing from anyone for it. My meaning - which should have been clear - was not that GeorgeLouis shouldn't enjoy himself, but that it is not the object of the project that he should enjoy himself. He was clearly arguing that he should 'have his enjoyment' by being allowed to format articles in a way which violates accessibility rules. Well, the needs of the readers are more important than whether or not GeorgeLouis enjoys himself. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC
I do not think that this refactoring of my comment by G S Palmer was appropriate. I did not accuse you of anything what I wrote was a question "AlexTiefling are you paid to place such comments or do you do it because you enjoy participating in the project?" which you have half answered. I asked it because you opened the door by belittling an editor for enjoying editing Wikipedia, and as GeorgeLouis has given that as a motive for editing belittling his/her contributions to the project -- for example taking the first article linked in this section Charles E. Downs do not all readers benefit from reading this version (2012) after GeorgeLouis edited it or before (s)he did so (c. 2010), whether or not the TOC is in the most appropriate place?-- PBS (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That's disappointing. I thought you had retracted. You introduced the previously unthoughtof suggestion that I might be a paid editor. You expected me to respond to the false dichotomy, that I must either edit the site for my own personal pleasure, or because someone else bribes me to. I reject the dichotomy, and I still dislike that you made the suggestion that I might be a paid editor. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and to help out at the refdesk. Whether I do that for enjoyment, or out of other motivations, is none of your business, and it's unimportant to the site whether or not I enjoy it. I certainly don't enjoy this sort of discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite notified me of this conversation.

The first point I would make is that the section header is biased "Do you still beat you wife?", it should be changed to something more neutral. The second point is that in my opinion that Bgwhite approaches this issue from a myopic point ofblinkered view because from the two instances I have been involved. Bgwhite seems to follow the old dictum "If the only tool one has is a hammer then everything looks like a nail", that is remove the TOC template so that anything below it becomes part of the lead. In doing this while demanding that others follow the MOS Bgwhite is causing articles to move away from the MOS guidelines, because it places information in the lead which does not belong there, and so is a breach of the very MOS guidelines that Bgwhite insists are followed to the letter.

To go through the two cases I have been involved. In the case of Cromwell's Other House the obvious solution was to add another header to move the TOC up to the end of the lead. In the end someone else did this, but instead of suggesting this as a solution Bgwhite tried to edit war into the article a removal of the TOC template as the one and only solution. Why Bgwhite? Is it because you are using a semi-automated tool called AWB to make the changes and have not added the necessary sophistication into the script to make any other change?

The second article is the one to which Bgwhite has already linked the talk page (List of knights banneret of England) I will not go into the details as presumably if someone has read this far then the link has been read. However to state "GeorgeLouis is not the only one that isn't understanding." without even the qualification of "I think" shows a battlefield mentality, which I think is the root problem here. -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Myopic point of view" may have been a particularly unfortunate choice of words in context. EEng (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You are of course right -- I should have adapted a Lloyd George's observation that "Mr Chamberlain views everything through the wrong end of a municipal drain-pipe" (wikiquote:Neville Chamberlain) -- PBS (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Could have been worse -- you might have referred to someone as tasteless, unfeeling, blind to reality, tone deaf, or emotionally crippled, or to something not passing the smell test, reflecting decisionmaking paralysis, or any number of other things like that. EEng (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
PBS, EEng, AWB does nothing with TOC. AWB doesn't change the TOC. Please don't make assumptions. I did add section headers to fix TOC problems. But after around the 20th undo for "I don't want a section header", I gave up. I'm dammed if I add a header, I'm dammed if I don't. It is plain simple, screen readers do not see text between TOC and first heading. Third pillar states, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute:" Having a group of people not being able to use the entire article goes against the third pillar. Root of the problem is choosing how an article looks and/or page ownership over having all readers read all of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, I don't know much about AWB, but I do know this: I've run into you many times where you've swooped down on an article and made mass changes that messed up the format or otherwise degraded the article. When challenged you point to a MOS "rule" (and I don't mean accessibility) and insist it has to be rigidly followed, despite the evidence right in front of us that doing so makes things worse -- unexpected interaction of certain templates creating extra vertical white space, for example. My impression is that you are working from some giant script that "detects errors" which aren't necessarily errors, but are sometimes potential errors, but that you don't understand this distinction. You seem to think that if these REs find it, it must be wrong. In that sense I do think your use of AWB may be behind this, but I stand ready to be corrected on that. Now then...
It is not "plain and simply, screen readers do not see text between TOC and first heading". Graham makes it clear elsewhere in this thread that what's going on is that users of screen readers are in the habit of skipping from the start of the TOC to the first header. I certainly understand not wanting to listen through the TOC just to see if there's something on the other side, but I'm not hearing that there's no way to skip just the TOC -- I'm hearing that a certain habit might cause post-TOC material to be missed. I'd like to know whether there's a way -- as an alternative to the "hit h" technique Graham87 mentions -- to skip just the TOC, in which case the habit should change to doing that, and we can (yippee!) maybe remove a rule from Wikipedia for once. EEng (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, your story sounded familiar to me. He did the same thing at list of state roads in Florida, where the obvious solution was a new section (frankly, I'm not sure it's necessary; couldn't something be done at the Mediawiki end to make screen readers not skip stuff between the TOC and first heading?). I hope the inclusion of a {{-}} between the TOC and heading is not objectionable to his scriptness. --NE2 10:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing can be done at the MediaWiki end; the problem is that almost all articles have no text between the table of contents and the first heading, so a screen reader user like me who wants to skip the table of contents (which is, frankly, most of the time) will hit "h" to get to the first heading, thus skipping any non-TOC text that happens to be after the table of contents. Putting {{-}} between the TOC and the first heading is fine, because that template doesn't generate any text. Graham87 12:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Not defending GeorgeLouis' dismissive attitude, but isn't there a key you can hit to skip over the TOC (or current caption or current other-thingamajig-clearly-quantized-by-a-box-or-something) instead of to the next heading? And if not, why not? I spent hundreds of hours in college reading texts for the blind so I am not unsympathetic, but we hear a lot that we must do this or that because screen readers and their users "expect" such-and-such, and I wonder if there shouldn't be more give-and-take over the extent to which such expectations should be met unquestioningly versus the screenreader's behavior conforming to what actually is.

A pet peeve of mine along these lines are the requirements that images be "in the section to which they belong" (which isn't always clear anyway) and that a section can't start with an image "because a screen reader will read the caption first before the listener has the context to understand it" (or something link that). I don't get it. Why are these more of a problem for sighted than for unsighted users? The visual layout of an article routinely floats images to far-away sections, and sighted users somehow deal with that. And print articles routinely open with an image-plus-caption before even the lead -- before there's any article text at all (sometimes you even have to turn the page to get to the lead). Again, how do these conditions affect unsighted users differently from sighted users?

Sorry that this is slightly offtopic but I feel I've got the right audience here and if there's a good explanation I'd be happy to hear it. EEng (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, Graham talks about your screenreader question here... I think. Bgwhite (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Not really. He just says what he says in this thread, which is that users of screenreaders have a habit of skipping from the TOC to the next section head, which is completely consistent with all I say elsewhere here, and doesn't answer any of my questions. EEng (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The "n" key can be used to skip to the next block of text; it does work in this case ... I don't know about anybody else, but I would never think of using it to move to the first heading of a page, because the "H" key suffices for that in almost all cases. Re: putting images in their appropriate sections, that's good for screen reader users but not *that* big a deal IMO – on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd rate it a three, whereas I'd rate the TOC issue about a nine. I've never heard of any guideline about avoiding images at the start of a section ... that sounds silly to me. Graham87 03:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility (while very important) is not the issue at hand. Just as if this were a dispute over content, it's the source of tension for our problem here. Not our problem. If there is an 'incident' which requires attention from admins or editors that's what we should look at. If the TOC location represents a bright line rule, then let's talk about giving ourselves better tools to avoid situations like these in the future. Otherwise we should just accept the accessibility issues here as best practices we hope editors follow and not beat someone about the head and shoulders with the importance of the guidance. Not saying there isn't disruption, but that should be the focus. Protonk (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it's the "beating about the head and shoulders" that I was talking about. I've tried to raised these points before and immediately got labeled insensitive, able-ist, etc etc. But we'll leave these points to another day. EEng (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Request escalating sanctions on User:Ihardlythinkso for continued violation of Interaction Ban[edit]

User:Ihardlythinkso and I are subject to an interaction ban. Recently almost every edit he has made has clearly referred to me and my edits, though without naming me, e.g. [130], [131]. I gave a clear warning on User:Fluffernutter's talk page that this is unacceptable and if it continued I would open an ANI thread. She also explained to him that any reference to me or my edits in any capacity is a violation of the IBAN. His edit to his sub-page where he sarcastically recites various wikipedia cliche's is clearly a reference to my "enough is enough" on Fluffernutter's page. He is clearly trying to push the boundaries and see what he can get away with. He has already been blocked twice for violations of the interaction ban and continues to flout it. Clearly he needs a lengthier block before he will get the message. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If, as it sounds like, only a select few would even know these are references to you, why are you giving him the satisfaction of showing he's annoyed you, which (it sounds like) is his goal? EEng (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Because he appears to be obsessed with me, and has continuously referenced my edits even after the interaction ban was imposed on him, and even after he was blocked twice for violating it. I am utterly fed up, I feel stalked and harassed, and I don't appreciate people making light of the situtation. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's you who's been stalking. User Talks, my subpages. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Notice the distinction. I write "I feel stalked and harassed". That's not an accusation, it's an expression of how I feel. Your response, however, is a direct accusation of stalking. Now that that's sorted out, get the fuck out of my wikilife forever. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of an IBAN is to prevent aggravation to the participants, and is nothing to do with how many of the audience might or might not understand what's happening — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of an IBAN is to prevent aggravation to the participants. Um, how can you say that, when the first sentence at WP:IBAN states: "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others."?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Like Max said, I've had extensive conversation with Ihardlythinkso on my talk page over the past day or so about what an i-ban means. The upshot is that s/he appears to have an idiosyncratic understanding of what's covered by an interaction ban, believing that commenting on the other person's edits is ok as long as it's about the content of the edits and not the editor's name, since WP:IBAN says "referencing the editor" and not "referencing the editor or their edits". I tried to make it as clear as I could to IHTS that even if they, personally, don't think the policy should/does apply to referencing edits, the policy still exists and is applied in that manner regularly, and they still have to follow it. I'm not really sure they understood either the policy or my attempt to clarify it; instead they're bogged down in the minutiae of what they can still say about Max and his edits, and further explanation of "no, don't do that, seriously" doesn't seem likely to help.

Those things said, though, I'm not sure "enough is enough" is, er, enough of a clear-cut violation to be acting on. It's a common enough phrase that many people use it daily. So I'd say my preferred closure here would be for IHTS to understand that they may not refer, whether directly or indirectly, to MaxBrowne or his edits in any way, and that they are expected to err on the side of safety if they're not sure if something they want to do is covered under that and not do it. If there is any further pushing of the boundaries after all this explanation, I think a block is the only option left to stop the behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd support Fluffernutter's solution here. Make the boundary explicit (even if we felt it was implied strongly enough before) and act on that if it is breached. Protonk (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Protonk, yes, I think that's logical. That boudary (listing an edit w/ commentary) was not clear to me. But I've asked too, about another boundary, explained below, which Max feels is not a violation (but Blackmane does, and I think Drmies too). To me the two are branches off the same tree, but if that isn't consensus, okay. The guidance at WP:IBAN says "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way", and I am unclear, if Max's edit to the Talk:Chess discussion linked below, was "avoiding me" or not. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I note that this has been clearly explained to IHTS already. The diffs MaxBrowne pointed to already came after clear warnings. Indeed, exactly the same behavior is continuing now: "And, if I am restricted from commenting on the quailty of a copyedit authored by user Y, then I defintely accept your view, which restricts user Y from in-[my]-face commentary at discussion threads, which he/she has already proved he/she is prone to do, with impunity, and drove a semi-contrary admin away in the process." [132]. --Amble (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The addition of a diff to MaxBrowne's edit could have been an accident. It might have been a subtle jab dancing next to the edge of the rules.

The re-use of the wording "enough is enough" may have just been a coincidence. It might have been a subtle jab dancing next to the edge of the rules.

I think future observation will make it clear if these are innocent things or an attempt to game the system to subtly provoke MaxBrowne.

I currently am assuming good faith until such a time that it becomes unreasonable to do so. And time that is getting close. It I do become convinced he is gaming the system then I think a block would most certainly be in order as we have a long precident of not putting up with gaming or wikilawyering. Chillum 20:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt whatsoever that the reuse of "enough is enough" on what is really a WP:POLEMIC page within his user space was a deliberate provocation, coming as it did right after I posted to Fluffernutter's page. However those less familiar with this user and his constant gaming of the system, his manipulations, his maintenance of "plausible deniability" etc will continue to "assume good faith". MaxBrowne (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to Fluffernutter's suggested wording "they may not refer, whether directly or indirectly, to MaxBrowne or his edits in any way", this is substantially the same as the wording at Wikipedia:IBAN#Interaction_ban which says "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly"

"directly or indirectly" is about the same thing a "in any way". Recording and commenting on edits of a user is indirect interaction. I don't think we need special wording, I think the issue is with Ihardlythinkso's interpretation of this. Chillum 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. IHTS's interpretation of the policy is that because it doesn't say "...or the content of their edits," that it doesn't apply to the content of the edits as well. I think we all agree that's an incorrect interpretation; my point is that it should be made clear one last time to IHTS, with finality, that no matter how s/he would prefer the policy be applied, admins will be enforcing the usual interpretation that includes edit contents, and IHTS's behavior needs to conform to that interpretation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Fluffernutter, yes, that's right, I just didn't know. (I relied on my read of WP:IBAN, and didn't draw that conclusion. Admin Sjakkalle's revert, accuse, and block threat, without any discussion, came as a complete surprise.) But please see my note to Protonk above. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

IHTS has now been told my many people that his interpretation is wrong. Just like someone who insists they were not edit warring due to a lack of understanding of policy after it has been explained to them then you should treat him as informed. I see no need to impose an alternate wording when the current wording suffices.

Making special wording for him will probably result in him saying he is singled out by an "enchanced IBAN". It will give credence to the claim that he is being picked on. Let us hold him to the exact same standards as others as those standard suffice to deal with this behavior.

If he refuses to beleive that everyone elses interpretation is wrong then he can still be blocked because he has been well informed by the community. Chillum 20:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You've completely misrepresented me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll pipe up here too as I've been in conversation this afternoon with them. Irrespective of their dispute with MaxBrowne, I've thrown my good faith into the ring and attempted to draw them into a conversation where by an acceptable middle ground could be reached. In my view, and one I iterated on IHTS's talk page, the IBAN policy should be viewed as strictly as possible and not as gagging order in any sort of way, but simply as a way to move on to healthier pastures. However, IHTS feels that this strict interpretation is hamstrings them as MaxBrowne does not share this view. Although I sympathise with their view, I disagree and interpret it as a barrier from the source of the grief. What keeps me away from the source of my frustration, even if it is enforced by others, will make me happier in the long term.

Having seen many IBAN's come and go, my understanding of IBAN is, imo, as intuitive as most other regulars at ANI or AN. However, that intuitive view can blind us to, what we would consider, unorthodox views of the policy. Rather than be exasperated or frustrated by such unorthodox views, I believe it would be beneficial to step back and think about whether their view actually reveals an interpretive hole in the policy. If the answer is yes, then I see no reason not to lay it out explicitly for the aggrieved party so that there is clarity. Of course the flip side could be argued that this is a wikilawyering view that seeks to skirt the edges of the IBAN and I have certainly seen many cases of that in the past, but I don't think this is the case here, AGF and all that. I recommend an expansion of Fluffernutter's explicit conditions, such that both MaxBrowne and IHTS are

  1. indefinitely forbidden from discussing, directly refering to, indirectly refering to each other in any way (using placeholders instead of directly naming), shape or form on any space, with the exception of required notifications for administrator noticeboards or Arbcom, though they can request other editors make the required notifcations.
  2. indefinitely forbidden from discussing, reverting (by any means), copy editing, keeping a log of (in user, talk or any other space) or refering to each other's edits in any space. The sole exception to this would be for the referencing of diffs as required for AN, ANI or Arbcom.

I believe these two conditions, which are really just IBAN but explicitly spelled out, should cover everything. Although if anyone has noticed I've missed anything from the list, feel free to tack it on. Blackmane (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Or perhaps it would be productive to initiate a discussion toward amending the policy so as to prevent further such incidents of Wikilawyering. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 00:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Anything I write here will be pilloried. There is so much bad-faith and hostility going on. I don't appreciate the false accuse of "wikilawyering" -- it's an insult, it's uncivil, it's untrue, it's crazy-making. And I don't appreciate accuses that I've "skated intentionally on the edge" on edge of IBAN. (Again untrue, bad-faith, and uncivil.) I am to speak in this hostile, attacking thread? I've already had 1.5 days of my life vanished, as a result of trying to get clarification on the IBAN after receiving an unexpected claim that I violated, and threat to block, by admin Sjakkalle. The reason it was a surprise, is because I gave WP:IBAN good-faith reading, and felt sure I was in compliance when I posted a single copyedit by MaxBrowne on my subpage list. (Again, bad-faith attacks all around about my intentions of doing so.)

One or more editors are saying here that I "disagree with the IBAN policy", suggesting that because I disagree with it, I can violate it. That's not right, and it's more bad-faith, twisting what I wrote and then accusing me of something I didn't do. People are eager to blame and accuse here, and sanction. How about trying to understand what is really the case?

There are two simple things: 1) the edit I posted on my subpage by MaxBrowne, and 2) commentary in discussion threads where I'm present or established, and MaxBrowne comes along and makes contrarian comments immediately after and adjacent to mine.

OK, what about the first thing. I did it in complete innocence (professionalism), and I don't like being accused that I didn't (bad-faith ghosts & gobblins). I confirmed I was clear to post the edit, by reading WP:IBAN in good faith and not seeing anything there preventing it. (Now that is where people are accusing me of wikilayering -- "finding a loophole". That's wrong. The list of edits on my subpage was not made for the purpose of irritating MaxBrowne, and that is what I've been accused of.) If adding that edit to my subpage list is violation of IBAN, I'm happy to accept that, but that was not clear to me at all after reading WP:IBAN. (I suggested to Blackmain and I think Fluffnutter too, that WP:IBAN s/b made more specific, commenting on the quality of [content] an edit is considered "indirect interaction with a user". Or even just posting the edit without commentary?) Apparently there is consensus that that is the case (though, even after two ANs, I saw no discussion, or opinions from admin weighed as consensus.

OK, what about the second thing. It's a bit odd to me, I have not seen any opinion at all at the two ANs where I asked for clarification, and there are no opinions here either (if I'm not mistaken). So I still don't know. (Blackmane has expressed to me on my Talk, it's an IBAN violation. Fluffnutter express on her Talk, it isn't a violation. When I asked Drmies about it, he didn't say whether a violation or not, but he went to MaxBrowe's user Talk and asked Max to please stop posting to the discussion thread where I was. MaxBrowne strongly opposed that view, saying he had every right to post his commentary anywhere on the Wikipedia, and that doing so was not prohibited at WP:IBAN.

So which is it? (Violation, or not?) Because MaxBrowne has done it with impunity, not only at the Talk:Chess thread, but at another thread as well (a shogi project page).

Personally, I agree with MaxBrowne. (That his comments are fine.) But see, and here's the deal, I didn't also see my comments about the quality of his copyedit that I posted on my subpage list, to really be any different. (I.e. both are comments on content, not comments on a user, as stipulated at WP:IBAN.)

One of the reasons I feel it is unhealthy for IBAN to restrict commentary regarding content, is that it shuts down idea-exchange, and that is not good for producing the best articles. But my opinion is really irrelevant here. I am not trying "fight" IBAN or "do as [I] please". I have only been interested to be in compliance, and my interests also are about content (edits and discussion threads), and accusing me of "trying to game the system" is again bad-faith and untrue.

  • Here is the thread at Talk:Chess [133].
  • Here is MaxBrowne's reply to Drmies [134].
  • Here is my subpage list of edits & some commentary [135]
  • Here is the offending edit in the subpage list which started everything (I can't link to it since it was removed from WP space when I deleted/recreated the subpage in order to rename it):

    * Kasparov versus the World, July 3, 2014: [136] Unnecessary and potentially ambiguous ("Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood"—MOS) elimination of possessive pronoun "it". (The only pronoun to appropriately and successfully reference "team".)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


All those words still bring us back to one question, Ihardlythinkso: are you willing to commit to not discussing Max or his edits, either directly or by referencing them, anywhere on Wikipedia? That means if you're in doubt about whether something would violate your ban or not, you don't say it. Right now, we're not interested in if you think it's fair, or if he should do it too, or if he said something you think contradicts something else, or what anyone else said about anything. We're interested in if you will follow the policy as it has now been explained to you. If you will, say "yes" - just "yes", not a long paragraph about why - and we can all move on. If you can't or won't, say "no" so the community knows that and can act accordingly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
are you willing to commit to not discussing Max or his edits, either directly or by referencing them, anywhere on Wikipedia? Absolutely, yes. (But Fluff, I never anywhere said anything wasn't "fair", only that it wasn't clear [from WP:IBAN]. I thought Sjakkalle was misinterpreting IBAN.) But I have also asked for clarification on Max's entering discussion threads where I am, as explained above. (Why are we failing to address that? The IBAN was a mutual IBAN. You feel WP:IBAN doesn't prohibit the Talk commentary I linked above, Blackmane disagrees with you, and I think Drmies disagrees, too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
In any ANI, the OP's behavior is subject to scrutiny as well. So my Q about Max posting contrary commentary in discussion threads, and whether that is against IBAN, isn't inappropriate. (But my motivation to ask if it's a violation, is not some tit-for-tat to try and punish Max, but to gain clarification about the IBAN, like I tried to do in two ANs but there was no discussion or answer on the point. [Both Blackmane and Fluffernutter provided answers in Talk discussions with them later, but their answers were opposite one another.]) As everyone knows I see comments on the quality of a copyedit, and comments in article discussion threads essentially the same (two branches on the content tree), but is just my opinion, and I haven't insisted on it, I've only asked for clarification. (And if Max's discussion contributions like the one I linked above is disallowed, then here is the time & place to inform Max. [And if that's the way it goes, I'm not sure he would be happy based on his remarks to Drmies, and I don't blame him, either. Because as already explained I'd prefer liberal where content commentary is at play, for the sake of articles. But there's no doubt too, Max's posts in two discussion threads, were designed to confront and challenge, and that kind of deliberate posting is certainly "interaction" covered by IBAN, which Blackmane sees, and Drmies too since he asked Max to stop it.] I would "trade" with Max the ability of him to make contrarian discussion comments anywhere, with my ability to comment on any edit of his that I objectively think disimproves an article on my watchlist, at my user subpage, however I'm not proposing "deal-making" at ANI, I'm just saying it to convey there needs to be equitable balance in the IBAN rules for both of us.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No one should accuse another of "stalking" without good reason. Max had done so to me (again) in this ANI. And what is the basis? (I have no idea what basis he's using to make that charge. I would like to see him explain.) He left "enough is enough" in front my nose at Fluffernutter's Talk, that was him following my edits, not vice versa. And the accusation that I updated my parody paragraph in my subpage to irritate him, is absurd. (When I created that parody paragraph, I thought hard what were all the WP templated memes I've seen used again and again in WP spaces to railroad users to bans. "Enough is enough" is one I've seen a lot and particularly dislike, because it's meaningless tautology on par w/ Popeye's "I am what I am and that's all what I am" and "That's all's I can standz, 'cause I can't standz no more!". So when I saw Max use it I thought: "Shit! How could I forget one of my most hated memes?!" and updated my parody paragraph to incorporate what I should have the first time. So now Max had interpreted this to be a personal jab at him, and that just doesn't/didn't exist, but meanwhile he has "no doubt whatsoever" it was an jab designed intentionally for him. Clearly he should doubt more. And the accusations of being "obsessed" about him also are unfounded and I think it's clear the reverse is true. I have not stalked Max's edits at any time, but he is clearly stalking mine, every word I write, seeing ghosts, then accusing and claiming persecution. I did not open this ANI and I did not make irresponsible claims and charges. It isn't the first or worst time he's done this. Meanwhile, my highest guilt is using "user Y" in user Talk discussions when trying to get clarifications on my IBAN Qs.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Proposed block of Ihardlythinkso for interaction[edit]

I just noticed the diff Amble posted where Ihardlythinks said: "And, if I am restricted from commenting on the quailty of a copyedit authored by user Y, then I defintely accept your view, which restricts user Y from in-[my]-face commentary at discussion threads, which he/she has already proved he/she is prone to do, with impunity, and drove a semi-contrary admin away in the process.".

Note that "user y" comes from the IBAN policy wording and refers to the person "user x" is in an IBAN in.

Calling the user in an interaction back "user Y" does not get around the fact that he is commenting on him when he says "restricts user Y from in-[my]-face commentary at discussion threads, which he/she has already proved he/she is prone to do, with impunity, and drove a semi-contrary admin away in the process"[137]

This is interaction plain and simple, he is commenting on the user he is in an IBAN with. Using "user Y" instead of the name is nothing but gaming the system. He has been dancing on the edge of the rules and has now clearly stepped on the wrong side of them. Given his block log shows he has already been blocked twice for violating the interaction ban I suggest a 1 week block. What you other people think? Chillum 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't say if that's a correct block length. If it's a first offense, I think shorter would be better. But I have to say this: If editor A is in an interaction ban with editor B, then editor A should make an active, conscious effort to avoid editor B at all costs. Stay away from the editor, stay away from the editor's edits, take anything connected with that editor off the watch list. Avoid temptation, and avoid the possibility of future blocks. Draw a bright line between oneself and the other editor. No problems after that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to anyone, that after being frustrated by two ANs where I tried to get clarification on two things about IBAN, but there was no discussion and I didn't perceive any answers that addressed consistency with what's at WP:IBAN, that I responded to both Fluffernutter and Blackmain when they initiated a Q or Talk thread with me, in further effort to get to answers while someone was willing to help me after Drmies told me to "fuck off"? And when they made reference to who I was in IBAN with, that I followed suit when necessary in the discussion in order to get to answers? This is being characterized as "gaming the system" by Chillum, and that's just bad-faith mischaracterization and totally wrong. I did not know whether making reference was or wasn't IBAN violation in those discussions, because, those discussions stemmed from the ANs, and I guessed that admin would see them as joint with those ANs, and I was also sensitive if Fluffernutter or Blackmane had warned me in those discussions not to make said reference, which they were also making, but they didn't. If WP:IBAN had been clear, if "tailoring" which Blackmane said is usual when IBANs are issued had been done, if Drmies had helped me understand my confusions, if I had gotten discussion to answers at the ANs, then there wouldn't have been the Talk discussions when Fluffernutter and Blackmane reached out to me to help. (So, tell me again how I've "gamed the system"??? That's completely malicious.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose For the purposes of getting through this once and for all, the above explicit conditions and a final warning to the two of them should suffice. Blackmane (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Support. IHTS is perfectly aware of what is required of him. He has two threads still on the current page of WP:AN on this very topic, in which the same answer has been given: WP:AN#Clarification on IBAN (or, perhaps more timely, please get admin Sjakkalle off my back) and WP:AN#Clarification on IBAN (or, stop admin Sjakkalle from hounding me). This discussion seems to be converting an IBAN into a logical game along the lines of What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. --Amble (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Right. And you're the editor who called MaxBrowne's "classic narcissist" slur against me OK, because it was "in context". Nice. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not at all an accurate restatement of anything I wrote. It's also irrelevant to the current discussion. --Amble (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support one week, two weeks, whatever. The length of this thread (and the many attendant conversations all over the place) are indicative of the extent to which Ihardlythinkso manages to wikilawyer every little bit all over the project. At some point it needs to stop. An alternate solution might be to impose an edit limit (size matters). For instance, say they wish to post a note somewhere. A typical note from them takes up about 8,000 words, in one single paragraph. A suitable restriction would be to limit them to 1% of their post. I urge the WMF to make this technically feasible, inventing a Preview-Edit Restriction Portal along the way. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I went to Drmies' Talk in good faith to ask Qs that would help me clarify my IBAN, since I was confused, because I saw him active in that area. Instead of just helping with answers this is how I was treated [138]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you've gone anywhere in good faith recently: you certainly didn't come to my talk page in good faith. I don't know what you're doing here anyway--I thought you didn't believe in ANI? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not true, Drmies.
Yeah, there was certainly no good faith displayed on Dennis Brown's talk page. I agree with Drmies on this.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Dennis was out-of-line. I responded. Ihardlythinkso (talk)
  • Your post on Drmies' page was itself a violation of the interaction ban. What were you hoping to achieve by it anyway, some kind of petty point scoring exercise? If you had a problem with my post on Talk:Chess (which did not make reference to you or your edits), you should have raised it on AN or ANI, instead of shopping around for a sympathetic admin, hijacking someone else's thread on an unrelated IBAN discussion on an admin's talk page and picking at the scabs a month and a half after the event. Whether or not the opinion I expressed on Talk:Chess concurred with your own is basically irrelevant; the only issue is whether in replying to the original poster Beneficii, I was violating the IBAN. As a member of Wikiproject Chess, the Chess article is naturally on my watchlist so Beneficii's Chess talk page discussion naturally came up. I didn't think I was violating the IBAN but I can see now that to be on the safe side it was probably better not to reply to it, just to avoid the perception of violating the IBAN (which was basically Drmies's point). Drmies's post to my talk page was more of a mild request than a warning, so my reply was probably a little more... assertive than it needed to be. I was pissed off about the circumstances in which the issue had been raised.

    The other edit of mine that you constantly complain about in the Shogi wikiproject proposal (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Council%2FProposals%2FShogi&diff=606403803&oldid=595260529) is 100% legitimate, you were not even involved in the discussion at the time. I am not topic banned from "board games other than chess". My participation in that discussion appears to have been the catalyst for a round of drama between you and Marchjuly. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll only reply about the shogi subpage, and only briefly. It's baloney what you're saying. You were aggressive on that subpage, same as at Talk:Chess, and you have never been a variants editor before, let alone shogi. My established edits with Marchjuly and at article Shogi were well established. It was your way to be contrarian towards my view, you even tried to refashion Marchjuly's subproject member signup page into a voting referendum with a 2-to-1 !vote to defeat my view once and for all, absurd, and when I pointed out the aggressive and inappropriate changes to Marchjuly, he restored the page to it's original purpose. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your post on Drmies' page was itself a violation of the interaction ban. That's rich. (Is that why Drmies intervened with you, but didn't mention anything to me about being in violation?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, what you are saying is "baloney". Here's what my post said:

    "I don't think WikiProject Chess is much concerned with Shogi overall. It has a common ancestor with chess but it developed in a very different direction and the two games have a completely different character. Apart from the Shogi article itself, which is ranked low importance, there shouldn't really be any Shogi-related articles within the scope of WikiProject Chess. WikiProject Board and table games are the people you need to talk to. "

    Nobody had edited that page for a month, you had never edited it at all, yet somehow this post is "aggressive" and targeted at you? Marchjuly certainly didn't think so, he thanked me for my contribution to the discussion. The only "aggression" on that page was displayed by you, most of it directed towards Marchjuly. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC) addendum: Whether or not a topic is in my editing history or not is irrelevant. You seem to be under the impression that I am under some kind of topic ban for board games other than chess. I am not. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The page does not bare that out. No matter what you say. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Overdue. BMK (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support: probably should get one final warning, but a one week block would definitely drive the point home. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 00:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I say "weak" for two reasons: 1) because I sincerely doubt that a block is going to make IHTS any more likely to buy into the interpretation of policy he's disbelieved thus far, or that it will stop him referencing the other user in his current discussions on his own talk page. I imagine we'll soon find ourselves either letting his block wear off with nothing changed, or having to double-down by extending it or removing talk access. 2) IHTS hasn't participated in this thread, nor has he edited substantially today since I notified him of the existence of this thread (he may or may not have noticed it being referenced earlier - I don't think he did, but it's hard to tell from the super-long monographs he's written on his talk - but no one appears to have said "hey we're discussing you over here" until I did a few hours ago). I would be much more comfortable with an immediate sanction if the behavior was actually still happening while we knew he knew of the existence of this thread. On the other hand, nothing he's done thus far indicates he intends to change his approach to i-bans whether this thread exists or not, so...yeah. Weak support. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Edited to strike outdated stuff 14:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Gonna agree with Bugs here, but feel it is time for a block. One week or preferably 48 to 72 hours, but no more than one week.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. At least one week per BMK and Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a one week block for endless wikilawyering about what should be crystal clear, which constitutes a wasteful time sink on the work of otherwise productive editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Block should be indef, per WP:NOTHERE. Ihardlythinkso is clearly more interested in stirring up drama than building an encyclopedia. 199.47.72.58 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There is a truly prodigious amount of wikilawyering in the assembled threads around this problem. Which is often a bad sign for these types of interaction bands, as they require effort to not poke the boundaries from the parties. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    The wiklawyering is by MaxBrowe, not me. He discovered an interest of mine via the Talk:Chess re use of "chess variant" and it's application to shogi, xiangqi, etc. He not only "interacted" with me at that thread (look at the timestamps of that linked dialogue), but thereafter researched that specific topic sufficiently to end up contributing to Marchjuly's project page, in order to aggressively post contrarian opinions further on the topic. Yet he claims innocence, yet he has no history or background with shogi. He was there to oppose my view as followup to his oppose at the Talk:Chess thread. His hiding the fact it is motivated by an aggressive pursuit to refute my comments, and not indirect interaction per IBAN, is the wikilawyering. Meanwhile, he is "certain" I have been stalking him, without any reasonable basis, just his imagining. If people cannot see this after reviewing those threads, I'd say that's pretty clueless.

    The fact that WP:IBAN is unclear, is not my fault. Notice how no one has responded to my query above, "violation or not". (Just Blackmane, Fluffernutter [although when I asked her if she actually read the thread and noted the timestamps, she was non-responsive], and Drimes [who found it fitting to ask Max to stop what he was doing; why did Drmies fold when Max told him stiff "No"? -- I do not know].)

    Here's a thought for you all to show the arbitrariness of all of this. Let's say in future I have a Q about this IBAN. So I go to an admin w/ my Q, and say "Can you help me w/ a Q I have about IBAN?" Is that a breach of IBAN? No? OK ... If instead I asked the admin "Can you help me w/ a Q I have about an IBAN I'm in with someone?" Oh my gosh! As sensitive as Max is, the pronoun "someone" clearly refers to him and no one else. Therefore it is a reference to the user, and a blockable offense! I could see Max even trying to make a case of violation in the first sentence, since "IBAN" was said, and clearly that is related to an IBAN I'm currenty in, and that must be an indirect reference to him again, and therefore a violation. This is the kind of wikilawyering that is really going on here, based on over-sensitivity, and not by me. And again, why has no one other than Blackmane and Drmies concluded that interaction exists at the Talk:Chess thread linked above, but others are unwilling to respond w/ their view? I'm the editor facing Max's pursuits and in-your-face contrarian commentary, the timestamps are important to see that it is confrontation and interaction. Yet there is no clarification here for Max for his behavior for future. Why?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

    The interaction ban is not canon law or the federalist papers. Interaction bans are simple. They do not require a tenth of the interpretation you've wrung out of them across multiple noticeboards. Interaction bans (and ideally, any rule in a place like wikipedia) are not exhaustive, interlocking and potentially contradictory stipulations. They're a simple admonition to not interact with another editor. Does that ban apply if you're both on different pages in different conversations? Probably. Often you'll be expected to use your best judgment to avoid violating an interaction ban. So discussing specific edits of an editor while assiduously avoiding discussing the editor might be one of those cases where someone might have said "maybe this violates the spirit of the ban". If even the request for clarification on the scope of the ban fills you with concern that it may be a violation on it's own, maybe the answer to that request is "no, do not go do that thing." Protonk (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    I honestly didn't view posting Max's edit and critique of it as "interacting with a user", and there was nothing personal or "gaming" since my orientation and interest is/was w/ content (not to poke someone). The fact that I was harshly reverted, accused, and threatened by Sjakkalle, was unreasonable and bad-faith, but he described it as that he was more "lenient" towards me that I deserved. Pure grudge, and pure "canon law and federalist papers". So please don't accuse me of being the wikilawyer, when I'm not the one. If he would have discussed first rather than acted harshly and gotten snarky, maybe there could have been better understanding rather than my need to open ANs in view that his view was a misinterpretation behind a need to exercise a grudge. I'm fine with stupulations to use common sense and be reasonable, but that was not done to me, the same expectation should be exercised by others. I thought I was in genuine compliance with WP:IBAN after a good-faith reading. My comments re edit quality was because I'm focused on content and was nothing personal. The hyperactivity to claim I was "dancing on fringe", "wikilayering", "gaming the system", is all extreme example of the opposite of behaving reasonably, with common sense and in good faith. Why heap all the reprimand on me, when others demo irresponsible and unreasonable behaviors to the extreme? There is also the grudge factor from Sjakkalle, which is an entirely different thing too, not coverable by any policy. p.s. I would probably never have cause to think a request for clarification on the scope of IBAN is a violation in itself; however, it would now cross my mind that others are apt to jump on it in bad-faith and make such ridiculous claims, all coming out of the hostile and nasty envirnoment of the WP, including grudges to harm someone disliked. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Ask any outside observer where the wikilawyering in this thread is coming from. You may not like the answer, but you need to hear it. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per a nod to 199.47.72.58, and to Fluff. I don't think a short block is going to fix what is wrong, and will likely make things worse. We are at a tipping point, and the only solutions are an epiphany by IHTS or an indef block by the community, and we don't have the power to propose or enforce an epiphany. A one week block seems more akin to poking the bear. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I do agree it comes off as punative, and feel as well there are elements of bad-faith (accusation of "gaming the system"). It is easier to "kill the messenger" than invest time/effort to explain & repair the vaguenesses at WP:IBAN. But I also know my expectations of others are too high. (So I don't take it personally, Dennis.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This edit is mildly encouraging. Let's just make it absolutely clear - no linking to a post or thread involving the other party, no skirting the edges, no testing the boundaries, no baiting, no oblique references, no quoting, no "plausible denial", no arguing over semantics, no wikilawyering. Avoid even the perception of referring to the other party. If in doubt, just don't. I'll abide by the same. (btw don't think an IP user should be taken seriously in an ANI thread). MaxBrowne (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But Max, you are employing "plausible denial" by justifying your aggressive contrarian posts at the Talk:Chess thread, and your research and followup in the same vein at the shogi project page (the fact I hadn't posted there earlier is an escapist argument). I actually have no problem with your in-my-face contrarian posts in discussion threads, and would never claim "IBAN violation" against you because of it, if in exchange you wouldn't get so overly sensitive if I critique the content of an edit of yours that I objectively feel is a disimprovement to an article. (However, that seems impossible now, since even though there is nothing at WP:IBAN prohibiting said critique, it's been made overwhelmingly clear to me now that admins read that in.) Nothing personal. (You have misinterpreted my query attempt with Drmies at his Talk; I was shocked to see him actually delete content discussion posts by another user in an IBAN! [Somehow that seemed very wrong to me and counter everything good about the WP.] So I went to him to try to get an understanding of the basis and what principles he was applying, as his actions seemed quite drastic; you asked what did I hope to achieve w/ Drmies? Simply to get info from his that I could undersand his rationale.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's an honest Q for somebody brave: Max initiated the direct dialogue and interaction w/ me here in this ANI, not me. Is anyone sure that IBAN permits this, even in a venue which permits reference to the other user, if the topic is IBAN clarification or violation complaint? (Is there previous precedent w/ this, where users in IBAN engage directly w/ one another? Where is that documented in policy that it is OK?) Just a Q; not a complaint. (My guess is there is lots of undefined and unknown, re the requrements of IBANs. That is rope to victimize someone, and victimization is such a popular sport on the WP.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It was Sjakkalle, not me, who pulled you up for your IBAN violation in your passive-aggressive "heading to gray goo" subpage, and he was definitely not acting at my instigation, regardless of any speculations/accusations you have made. So please drop the "over-sensitive" crap. I actually think it was an unwise move on his part. The outcome was utterly predictable - massive over-reaction on your part, and several hours of wasted person-hours which could have been spent on productive editing. You were doing some good work and he should have left you to it. I have no taste for wiki-drama, in fact I despise it, and I have little respect for editors who spend more time commenting on the drama boards than they do producing content. This is why I never complained about your link to my post even though it was a clear-cut IBAN violation. I really don't want any more problems with you. I hate drama. Despise it. I hate this board too. But if you keep up with the baiting, the oblique references, the linking to my edits/threads, the "plausible denials", the semantics etc etc then I will have no other recourse. If in doubt just don't. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But your history of over-sensitivity and imagined persecutions are undeniable in your edit history, Max. (Just sayin'.) I cannot believe Sjakkalle was stalking my edits or browsing my user subpage, on his own. Based on your proven oversensitivity demonstrable by many diffs, and your following my edits as well, it's a reasonable supposition that you tipped-off Sjakkalle, and admin friendly to you and who has clear grudges against me. (I've asked Sjakkalle to explain how he came to be aware of that edit post of yours more than once; no reply.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"Based on your proven oversensitivity demonstrable by many diffs, and your following my edits as well, it's a reasonable supposition that you tipped-off Sjakkalle". I have stated very clearly, a number of times, that I had nothing to do with Sjakkalle's pulling you up on your IBAN violation. Are you calling me a liar? Put up or shut up, motherfucker. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that a long term or indef block could be seen as justifiable and that yes, perhaps in their current state, the editor would become worse after a short, one week block. I agree that a longer block may be needed but have to wonder if a longer block right now would be seen too much. I will say I do understand what Dennis is saying, I just wonder if we should try to take this one step at a time. But...frankly I would not be even slightly disappointed if the editor was indeffed. The standard offer would apply.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1 week block - editor does not get it, they've been given more than enough chances. Next time (and I hope there isn't a next time) should be indef. GiantSnowman 15:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1 week block, but strongly suggest indef, based on continued WP:NPA, as demonstrated above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ihardlythinkso believes either that I am stalking him or that MaxBrowne solicited my help. Neither is the case. I cannot quite remember how I came across the page, it was probably via a "what links here" link where a "grey goo" title will picque interest. If I had been actively stalking Ihardlythinkso, I would have discovered the entry much sooner, not 17 days after. By then it was so old that any blocking would be merely punitive, but it was nevertheless a standing breach of the IBAN. I only issued a warning for what is a clear-cut breach of the IBAN and removed the offending entry, I didn't seek out any blocking of Ihardlythinkso over this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Support 1 week block for continued and multiple violations of the interaction ban over the past two days. The smart thing to do would have been to either accept that he had crossed the line or make a polite request if something was unclear. Instead his first response was to make an absurd accusation ("Apparently you are stalking my edits with a bias against me, actively looking for a way to strike at me, and that itself is not only aggressive and biased but then unbecoming of admin."), and proceeding to open to AN threads calling for me to be sanctioned. The counterproposal by him I have already responded to below. The limits of an IBAN are nowhere near as difficult to comprehend as suggested, and the claim that he thought that putting MaxBrowne's edit on his "grey goo" list was compliant with the IBAN is implausible. The diff provided in Chillum's proposal is further gratuitous and prohibited interaction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal from IHTS[edit]

I have a radical alternative proposal.

  1. Remove the IBAN. (Why? I really do hate it, because it's an ugly tool that effectively becomes a roving topic ban of sorts, which to me is destructive to the best content development for articles.)
  2. I promise to never offend Max, going out of my way to take extreme precautions not to. (If I have a problem w/ one of is edits, I won't list it as sub-par. I'll gently go to his Talk (or the article or project discussion page) to express my view and why, and nothing more. I don't think I've edit-warred with him, so I wouldn't start that, either.) If Max wants to insult me, I will just let him.
  3. I'll throw in the epiphany Dennis wants, too. (I'll never lambast another editor, or even be critical of another editor, anywhere, any reason. I'll also never swear. [That s/ make at least a couple editors I know, happy!] I'll always just be polite, and I promise to work on succinctness & brevity, which I have heretofore only reserved for my edit contributions.) If I have a legitimate grievance w/ an editor (and right now I have only two: The Bushranger's block of me which I feel was unjustified; and some of his and Panda's comments which I feel were unbecoming of admin), I will address those, if I do at all, with again, politeness and brevity, in a proper venue.
  4. If I fail in any of this, then impose the block, make it longer if you want, and reinstate the IBAN immediately.
  5. I only ask one thing if this is acceptable alternative proposal: that Max apologize to me here, for the nasty "classic narccisst" comments he made at an earlier ANI, to get things started on a right footing.

(I'll be out of town and unable to respond further for a few days. Thx for the consideration.) Sincerely submitted, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • No BMK (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to assume good faith on what you are suggesting, but in it I see too much evidence of the contrary.
    1. Attaching a condition that Max apologize to you would on its own invalidates the entire proposal. Everybody is required to follow the Civility and No Personal Attacks policies, they are not bargaining chips that we negotiate with. Sanctions are lifted when there has been a significant improvement in behavior, one that demonstrates that it is safe to lift the restrictions. They are not lifted because the sanctionee doesn't like them, or demonstrated that they are unable to abide by them. There is no chance that I will support lifting the interaction ban as of now. It is too late for mere promises.
    2. Over the past months you have been engaged in personal attacks, swearing [139], and constant accusations, such as the one calling me an abusive and stalking admin [140]. I have no real grudge against you. I notice only that you suddenly decided to take on an extremely hostile tone against me on January 23, and over the next weeks and months told a whole slew of editors to "fuck off" while denying that there was anything wrong with your conduct. Now suddenly, with a block staring you in the face, you claim that you can just have an epiphany? That you can just throw a switch and change your conduct suggests that your postings were not written out of real anger, but a deliberate attempt to cause grief to members of the community. An epiphany is not something you can just "throw in".
    3. Your latest statement seems carefully worded at first glance, but in reality it reeks of continued arrogance. You are demanding an apology from Max, yet there is no hint of an apology to the countless users that you have told to "fuck off" in one way or another. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Per the short and brief answer from BMK...which I agree with and the longer response from Sjakkalle which is spot on.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"slander" claim on Resin Server article[edit]

66.27.102.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Resin Server, an article about a software product, has over the past few years been the target of spamming and censorship campaigns via a variety of sockpuppets and IP edits with obvious COI problems, and hence is currently in pretty poor shape. (Though some historical edits do appear to have been made by regular Wikipedia editors who are simply enthusiasts for the product.)

In recent days I've made edits with the intention of trying to get a bit more encyclopedic content back into the article, expecting to follow the normal channels, but in the comment on a recent edit one of the IP addresses appears to have violated WP:NLT by claiming that publishing quotes from the software vendor's own marketing materials from a few years ago constitutes slander. The NLT policy page says to report legal threats here at ANI. --▸∮truthiousandersnatch 10:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. --John (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't a legal threat at all Kosh Vorlon    16:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Very bad block, wasn't a legal threat. Its chilling to do so unless it comes across as clearly a legal threat. I've commented on edits that have used the terms "libelous or slanderous" for reasons of highlighting the most severe offenses or when we actually have a situation underway. The use of the term here was incorrect, but it was a bad choice of words - not a legal threat and the editor doesn't seem to be acting on behalf or as part of the Resin Server company. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that was a super great block. When I remove something in an article which violates BLP, sometimes I explain that one purpose of BLP is to avoid the threat of defamation. That someone could defame a subject or libel a subject on wikipedia is not outside the realm of possibility. Discussing it (and not threatening with the intent to chill speech) is not a legal threat. Moreover, non experts sometimes invoke terms of art like slander or libel to attach a sense of gravity to an error or a position, without formulating what any reasonable observer would call a legal threat. We have new editors cry "vandalism" all the time for what are content or editorial issues. We try to educate people about what Wikipedians mean when they say vandalism, but we don't generally drop the hammer down for misuse of a trope to dramatic effect. Our zero tolerance for legal threats shouldn't require we blow up every new editor who barges into content like this. Revert the edit, explain to the editor what NLT means and why terms of art like 'libel' are problems, but don't actually indef for legal threats in absence of a legal threat. Protonk (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I hear what you're saying. I thought "The incorrect citation of the no longer supported version gives a false impression that can be interpreted as slander." was quite clearly a legal threat or an implication of one and I have no apologies to make about the block. Nevertheless I have now unblocked, in the light of the anonymous editor's assurance that he does not intend to sue. --John (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Il Divo vandalism[edit]

188.28.140.211 blocked 31 hours by Euryalus. (Non-admin close) G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Could an admin look at the page history, then sanction [141] this IP editor. thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) A block is in order; pageblanking and blatant vandalism. WP:AIV is probably a better place to go for this in the future. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Done and thanks for raising it. As above, WP:AIV is the usual place for vandalism reports, and offers a pretty swift response. Euryalus (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll remember WP:AIV in future. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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


Repeated copyright violations by User:Strorm[edit]

Indeffed for copyvio by TenOfAllTrades. (Non-admin close). G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User Strorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly ripping copyrighted images from the web, uploading them as own work to Commons, and then adding them to articles here on en-WP, in spite of multiple warnings on their user talk page (both here and on Commons) not to do so (in one case the same image has been uploaded three four times, added to the same article here three four times, and then deleted three four times as a copyvio on Commons; so he obviously doesn't learn anything from it...). I know that copyright violations on Commons aren't blockable here, but leaving to others to clean up after them, removing dead image links time after time, is clearly disruptive. Thomas.W talk 13:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

While uploading copyvios to Commons isn't generally blockable here, adding images that are known copyvios to enwiki articles certainly is. The majority of Strorm's edits here have been the addition of copyvio images (which had been uploaded by Strorm to Commons using completely inaccurate licensing and creator information). As far as I can tell, he's never made a non-copyvio contribution to Commons, and he's never made a non-trivial contribution to enwiki that wasn't related to his copyvio images.
I have blocked Strorm indefinitely for repeated copyright violations over the last four months. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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


IP disruption of talk page[edit]

194.153.138.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and unfounded (and honestly, ignorant) accusations of bad faith at Talk:Robert Garside. Two sections followed by [142]. When placing a warning on the IP's talk page I noticed a sockpuppetry warning leading to User:Dromeaz. As it's the same article, quack, quack? --NeilN talk to me 16:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Still at it (badly). Switched IP's to yesterday's.

135.196.170.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --NeilN talk to me 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Now this same user is disrupting another talk page [143] CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidently this user is User:Dromeaz or User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate and was banned because of edits on Robert Garside and Jesper_Olsen_(runner). CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've now taken to reverting their edits on sight as per WP:3RRNO #3. --NeilN talk to me 13:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema and The Godfather[edit]

I've been working the page The Godfather for about a week now and expanding sections that were either really weak or poorly cited. About two days about Ring Cinema began to revert several of my edits and replace it with the information - which was for the most part unsourced - that was there before I began working on the page and I'll admit that I reverted a couple of times for edits that I thought were especially unreasonable. My edits are constantly being reverted and deleted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) because Ring feels they are poorly written (1, 2, 3), bloat the article (1, 2, 3, 4), or trivial (1, 2). He later stated that his versions are better than mine (1). The final thing that pushed me over the edge to come here was this edit (here) that directly attacked me and my reading comprehension over an honest mistake. I have no problem with people editing my writing or rewriting it, but when they constantly revert or erase it and then insult me, I do. I tried talking on Ring's talk page, but Ring continues to assert his writing and choices for the reasons that I have listed above. I sought out the help of another major contributor to the article as a third party opinion on the edits that have taken place recently to see what he thinks should stay or go, but he has failed to respond and has been inactive of late. I wasn't sure where to take this because to me it comes off as WP:OWN or WP:EW, and now coming close to breaching WP:CIVIL. Thanks for your time, Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 16:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is purely a content dispute and this thread should be closed ASAP. WP:3O, WP:RFC and WP:DRN are the options available to Disc Wheel. MarnetteD|Talk 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks man, will do. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to strongly disagree with MarnetteD on her assessment. Because the article in question is on my watch list, I have been paying attention to Disc Wheel's appropriate content additions and copy edits at the article for the last several days. These are good edits. I've also been watching the discussion between Disc and Ring with interest because Ring has a history of both article ownership issues and edit warring. His article ownership and lack of civility is well known and his block log for edit warring is long (see here:[144]). This report is just a continuation of more of the same kind of complaints already made and reports filed in the past regarding Ring. Disc Wheel filing this report here is appropriate and warranted, in my opinion.
For example: The following revert links are characteristic of Ring's tendency to blanket revert and edit war at articles where he appears to have ownership issues. His most recent block was for edit warring and imposed for one month, starting May 1, 2014. His blanket/catch-all reverts typically have edit summaries containing "doesn't add to the article", "trivia", "not well written", whether true or not. Rather than editing what has been edited to improve upon it, he just reverts all of it. It's also worthy to note that Ring had not once gone to the article talk page over the last few days to discuss with Disc, just revert. In my opinion, this is Ring's status quo edit warring and ownership behavior that's been going on for years. Some will likely disagree with me, but in light of Ring's very recent month-long block for edit warring, I think this latest report should be looked at for what appears to be ownership as well as repeated and continued edit warring behavior. [145]; [146]; [147]; [148]; [149].

-- Winkelvi 18:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is still a content dispute. If you have a problem with Ring Cinema then WP:RFC/U is your next step. Admins are not going to take action here on either of these complaints. BTW you got my gender wrong. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll take it to the RFC then. Thanks for the help. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of how Winkelvi feels about Ring's reverts it is still a content dispute and Marnette has correctly outlined the available options. I will also add that you need to start a discussion on the article talk page that addresses the specific edits being disputed. Any external process will want to see a valid attempt by both parties to resolves the issues with the article rather than issues with each other. If there is a discourse on the talk page then other editors who have this article on their watchlist can add their own opinions; if opinion is completely against Ring then he has to respect the consensus, but at the same time we cannot assume Ring's edits are improper simply because another editor has also had an altercation with him at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If Ring hadn't been exhibiting the same edit warring behavior as all the other times, I'd agree it's only a content dispute. And, sorry about the gender blunder, MarnetteD. The "ette" in your name gave me the impression you are female. Oops! -- Winkelvi 18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Disc Wheel: RFC/U is only for commenting on a user there will be no consideration of or action taken regarding your edits to the films article. You would be better off using the dispute resolution links I gave you earlier in this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: You are making statements about RC while presenting no evidence to support them. No admin is going to act on your assertions here. RFC/U is still the place to be but you will need to present a stronger case than you have so far. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. Thanks. I will amend the above to include diffs. -- Winkelvi 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I have posted on the talk page now and in the dispute resolution section. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The other issue is the multiple reverts made by RC against Disc Wheel and Corvoe in the last day or so. He has been blocked eight times in the past for this, with the last block being for 1 month in May of this year. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
He's constantly reverting my edits for the aforementioned reasons despite when other editors have expressed their satisfaction with my efforts (1, 2). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Bizzenboom1234 vandalism[edit]

Thanks Favonian ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting indefinite block of Bizzenboom1234 (talk · contribs) for persistent vandalism. I didn't take this to AIV due to the user having some limited productive contributions to articles. However, the user also has a long history of blatant vandalism (the most recent being here), which certainly outweigh the positive contributions. See user's talk page for history of warnings. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough – I've blocked the account indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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


Disruptive editor Allen750[edit]

Allen750 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I've been following Allen750 for several weeks and have seen him repeatedly post personal opinions on talk pages (ex. 1, ex. 2), argue with other editors over established Wikipedia policy (note foul language in edit notes), edit war and revert changes without discussion or with insults (see above), and repeatedly and insistently confuse 'First Amendment rights' with the ability to post whatever he wants on Wikipedia, a private website.

Editors User:Drmies and User:Ansh666 can elaborate on his activity on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 talk page, which I have not looked deeply into but understand has been equally disruptive. (Is there a template with which I may notify them and solicit their opinions here?)

This user has and most likely will react rudely and counter-productively to any attempt at discussion, warning, or sanction. Not sure how to proceed here (I'm a very new editor), hence this report. FekketCantenel (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've posted the ANI-notice template on Drmies's and Ansh666's user talk pages to notify them of this report. I apologize in advance if this was an inappropriate use of the template FekketCantenel (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the multiple edits, but I just remembered to add that I and the two editors mentioned above already attempted some gentle (and maybe not so gentle) reproof on his talk page. Here is his talk page as of this morning, before he wiped our responses and prompted my report here. FekketCantenel (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Peculiar editing history, started 4 years ago but mostly dormant until just recently. At the very least, Allen750 needs to be told that there is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia, and that the first amendment does not apply here. Also, the various F.U.'s compel putting him on ice for a while (if not permanently). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You might want to point him to this while you're at it. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 18:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha, it's funny you say that; User:Ansh666 already did, on his user talk page before he wiped it (link also added above). - Preceding unsigned comment added by FekketCantenel (talk · contribs) at 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There's also no constitutional requirement to have a sense of humor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I posted on their page in the context of the Malaysia Airline article, basically to say that those forum posts are disruptive and might lead to a block. I wasn't aware that they had a history of such posts in other places. I don't see the need for action right now, especially not after the flurry of contributions made to their talk page, but more of those posts on the Malaysia article talk page will likely lead to a block, and I suppose the same goes for other forum posts. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I hate to ask, and disregard if you're busy, but would you (or User:Ansh666) elaborate on (or link to instances of) his behavior on the Malaysia Airline article/talk page? I took a look, but since it's a current event on which I'm not well-read, I couldn't tell bad behavior from good-faith edits. FekketCantenel (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this points at some sort of conspiracy, so is this (besides the BS thing about the First Amendment in the edit summary), this here is opinionated nonsense (with a possible racial slur), and this is about tin foil hats, I believe. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually can't add anything here. I only saw the edit summary about the First Amendment getting someone banned and remembered the XKCD strip. Of course, it helps that Drmies explained as well. Ansh666 02:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's on the move again. "Wikipedia needs to change. Ban me for my 1st Amendment usage." Considering how many times he's been linked to the relevant XKCD comic and otherwise had it explained to him that the First Amendment is irrelevant here, I now suspect that this user is either completely ignoring all other editors, or actively trolling. FekketCantenel (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. While the edit this time was legitimate, the user needs to stop using irrelevant and provocative edit summaries as a polemic (unfortunately WP:POLEMIC only applies to user space). Ansh666 03:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

IP 98.148.34.92[edit]

98.148.34.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Has been warned numerous times for various things, typically for adding unsourced content. In this edit they copypasted copyrighted content from here, for example. The user has never participated in a discussion and seems to edit with no consideration for the community. I don't know how to educate them so that they start editing constructively. Based on their history of edits to children's TV article, with some repeat business at Fairly OddParents I think it's likely that this is the same person who has been making these edits from this IP for the last several months as opposed to various users. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked three months. Disruptive editing and copyright violations. This editor hardly ever participates on talk. Last block was for two weeks in 2013. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Scott[edit]

Someone edited the Hillary Scoot page in the personal section with an inappropriate paragraph about Aaron Ridgers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.91.196 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Already reverted. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomersimpson[edit]

I just got an email from Neutralhomersimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) asking for some hidden revisions] (and here) from Angie Goff. Because they were hidden by User:JamesBWatson as a copyvio and appear to violate BLP I've refused to let them have the material and told them that on their talk page. Just wanted to leave a note in case they try asking someone else for the information.

I've a concern about the name as it could be possible to confuse them with User:Neutralhomer. It's not an obvious block but when I saw the email I did think that it might have been an alternate account of Neutralhomer but it doesn't seem likely. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutralhomersimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not an alternate account of mine, I don't have any. I have an issue with an IP editor regarding edits to the Angie Goff article. I suspect that Neutralhomersimpson (again, not me) is the user behind the account. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Neutralhomersimpson has no contributions. As Neutralhomer says, there has been a long history of BLP violations from shifting IP addresses. Neutralhomer is one of several editors who revert the BLP violations, some of which are redacted. The account from which the email was sent, Neutralhomersimpson, may be impersonation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on this conversation, the block seems obvious now (to me anyway), and I've implemented it. As part of the block I disabled e-mail but did not revoke talk page access, at least not yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Bbb23, much appreciated. A checkuser might be necessary to see if the BLP vandal has any other sleeper accounts out there. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. Neutralhomer, I didn't really think it was you but there was a small possibility, in part because of the return email address. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?[edit]

Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?, a close request for Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?? The close requester wrote: "I'm hoping we can keep the RfC brief, for obvious reasons. Would an uninvolved editor take a look and decide whether it can be closed yet?"

I agree that this is a sensitive issue. If an admin or uninvolved editor agrees that this can be closed now, please close the discussion. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I would leave it open for a short time further; people are still commenting (and no doubt more will see it because of this notice). Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by 76.14.18.226[edit]

76.14.18.226 (talk · contribs) Stated deleted information that jeopardizes current FAMs. The person re-entering the information is currently being investigated. Please do not re-add the information. If you are affiliated, you too will be investigated. here Jim1138 (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I was the person threatened with legal action. --I dream of horses (T) @ 06:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocked 1 week. --Rschen7754 06:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems a less of a threat, more like a promise. (post on the IPs talk page)--Auric talk 11:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Or a bluff. At least one of sourced items he keeps removing is a publicly-available US government document. So, what are the "investigators" going to do? Arrest the Department of Homeland Security? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. --Auric talk 14:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Whois reports the IP being of Wave Broadband in Redwood City, CA. About 15 miles (24 km) from SFO Jim1138 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing uncivility[edit]

Hi we have an editor who is disruptive. He has an open SPI as well. Here [[150]]. Hes being abusive here [[151]] and earlier here [[152]] and here [[153]] I have put a be civil link on the page earlier and reminded him again now and will put a subst:ANI-notice on his talk page. Hes got an agenda I suspect. We are pretty much ignoring him for now and I dont believe he will listen to WP protocol from me. Thank you. SaintAviator talk 07:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've notified them since you didn't seem to have gotten around to it. I'd like to point out that all the links you've provided above are diffs of your own edits. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, as far as I can tell, the OP is referring to Billgannett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (SaintAviator fails to mention that they started the SPI). G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for block on user St quadri[edit]

As clearly seen in his talk page , the User has failed to pay heed even to final warning against Advertising and promotions in his user page. The page has now been notified of a Speedy Deletion. Request the user to be blocked Indefinitely Sahil 07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The User Also Keeps removing the Speedy Deletion Template without contesting Sahil 07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Indefinitely blocked by Shirt58, although St quadri has already attempted to remove the block notice from his talk page. (I've restored it). Shirt, the block log says "indefinitely" but the block notice says "temporary". Should that be changed? Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
He's removed it again, but recent consensus is that editors can remove block notices but not declined unblock requests. However, he probably should be told it was indefinite not temporary.
Hi Shirt58 and others , Have now notified 'Indefinite Block' in the user Talk Page -- Sahil 12:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Only having had the admin bit for a little while (erm... actually over year now) I'm still trying to get a grip on how the various block templates' code works; I'm more than happy to have people more smarterer that me fix things up. And on a lighter note, when I said "Woo-hoo-hoo! There's been a been a new species of spider identified in Tasmania. I can start a Wikipedia article about it!" at work today, all my colleagues... quietly moved well away from the crazy person. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Eshwar.om disrupting[edit]

Eshwar.om (talk · contribs) has been engaged with Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) on numerous pages related to Hinduism. Eshwar has been adding multiple images and crowding the articles. These images have, for more than one time, been removed by Redtiger and their reasons for removal have been given in edit summaries as well as dedicated talk page discussions (e.g. Talk:Vishnu#Removal_of_images, Talk:Ganesha#Images_Removed). Previously, Eshwar has also reported 3RR against Redtiger which was decided as no violation. The closing admin also noted how Eshwar was forum shopping. (link here). Post failure to maintain his choice of images on pages, they went on to request semi-protection of various pages [154], [155] like Vishnu, Ganesha, Rakshasa, and Kamsa, hoping that would stop Redtiger from removing the unneeded images. Probably after realizing that semi-protection won’t stop Redtiger or other users from reverting him, they probably have now resorted to removal of images from pages which have been previously been edited by Redtiger. (e.g. [156] at Keshi (demon), [157] at Kali Puja, [158] at Ashta Nayika.
On side note, Eshwar seems to not be getting along well with many users looking at various notices on their talk page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.this is the first rule of this page.But i did'nt get any notification.Second thing is user Redtigerxyz removed file on 15 July 2014‎ which is my edit Vishnu.He said reason is rm copyvio.same day it self i said before remove please check copyrights from flickr.he said Checked copyrights from flickr; plz familiar yourself with wikipedia image policies.then 6 July 2014‎ i added file from wiki commons.he removed even that file too.and said rm img crowding.i said again dont remove images.crowd not a proper explanation.please read WP:IUP.he reverted my edits said the image is broken, attributes missing.then continuous unknown ip users edited that page.user redtiger started to say one img enough like so . he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism article plz click here.i informed in his talk page.but he deleted all.no reply from him.after blanking my talk in his he put smily symbol in his talk page Edit summary .plz click here.this is one enough showing how user rediger playing in Wikipedia. and he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism article.so i asked semi-protection for vishnu.but

unfortunately it has declined.but now i hope the Admin carefully analyze all the things,and i believe that the admin do the needful.Because more person we believe Wikipedia is reliable.thank you.Eshwar.omTalk tome 14:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dunno why they still have the "on their talk page" clause. You anyways got the notification. Just so you don't have complain, will post on your talk page too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See my reply on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive263#Hi_all. All flickr images were copyvio and deleted. I can remove anything from my talk per WP:OWNTALK. But, Eshwar removed my edits on Talk:Vishnu [159] Forum shopping [160] has not ended. While Eshwar accusing people of being from Karnataka and "rm (remember?) Tamil values" [161][162], Eshwar is creating WP:UNDUE to Tamil Nadu portrayals in images. He is flooding articles with Tamil images, only though Tamil representations already exist in the article (e.g. Talk:Vishnu#Removal_of_images, Talk:Ganesha#Images_Removed). He is adding pictures of broken images of the deities, with incomplete iconography and missing attributes (attribute in English scholarly literature is an object held by a Hindu/Jain/Buddhist divinity). At Rakshasa and Kamsa, the problem is not images, but WP:POV and accuracy of facts. The user repeatedly adding Kamsa is a rakshasa, which is inaccurate (he is described as human or asura), without proving it with RS. Redtigerxyz Talk 19:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Three "final" warnings, editor still adding OR[edit]

Joshuaj102003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

After edits like these [163], [164], [165], [166], [167] and several final warnings [168], [169], [170] Joshuaj102003 is still injecting personal analysis into articles. [171], [172] Inventive but not wanted here. Request block until editor states they understand and will abide by WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. --NeilN talk to me 13:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked for disruption, and left another talkpage message outlining the problem. Perhaps over-assuming good faith, but it may be the issue is competency rather than malice. Euryalus (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Euryalus, thanks. I completely agree the edits are not made out of malice but rather are of an enthusiastic fan. However it's not a good sign the editor has absolutely no talk page posts. --NeilN talk to me 14:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, yep. Will keep an eye on whether things change after the block, but the number of past ignored warnings doesn't fill me with confidence. Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war to sanitize Mizzou Arena[edit]

Seven month's since I last brought this up at AN/I, User:Eodcarl has continued to ignore consensus to remove sourced information related to a past controversy with Mizzou Arena. His edits have devolved from simple assertions contradicted by actual sources, to endless reversion. He has demonstrated that he intends to play the long game to brute force his unsupported opinions into the article. I fully expect this destructive behavior to continue until someone takes administrative action. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The talk page discussion was trending towards putting it in the History section rather than the lede. Yet, the edit warring is either insisting it is in the lede, or deleted entirely. This is a content dispute and is not ANI worthy; the talk page, while contentious, will sort it out. If not use WP:DR. Rgrds. --64.85.214.92 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure you got a good read of the talk page. There were some concerns about the neutrality of the naming section. Some editors and I reworked it and most people were happy with it judging from the silence. Phil had earlier said that he wasn't "entirely convinced" it needed to be in the lede, but besides that, Eodcarl is the only one pushing this issue. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
But what can an admin do that cannot be handled via WP:DR? If an admin wants to, they can act as a WP:3O or they can respond as if this were WP:DRN, but my point is I read the talk page and you don't need an admin you need WP:DR. Eodcarl has participated in the talk page but discussion petered out in December; he then piped up in February to no response. Use WP:BRD not BRRRANI. Rgrds. --64.85.214.92 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed4u circumventing one week block[edit]

I post this on WP:AIV last night but there has been no traction on it. Fixed4u is using 85.246.179.195 to avoid the one week block placed on their account. They are doing the exact same edits which got them blocked in the first place. Helpsome (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Fixed4u. Are you Murry1975? 85.246.179.195 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

So even though you make the same edits to the same articles and even though Fixed4u was caught evading the block with 85.240.138.247 you aren't Fixed4u? Helpsome (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, both of you have exceeded WP:3RR by a long shot, so one or both of you are going to be blocked for sure. Helpsome, can you provide some evidence that this IP is Fixed4u? Please provide diffs of some edits that were made by Fixed4u, and the same edits made by this IP. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't edit warring to remove edits from a block evading sock. Here are the diffs: Fixed4u's edit and IP's edit You can see the article talk page where the IP took up where Fixed4u left off arguing the exact same thing. Helpsome (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP for 31 hours, as he/she was continuing to make mass reversions, even after this ANI complaint was started. If it can be shown that the IP is a banned user, then the IP should be blocked for a longer period of time, as should the main account. You're right that it isn't edit warring to revert a sock, but you have to show that it was a sock to prevent yourself from being blocked. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand that. I really felt that looking over the edits it was plainly obvious. An IP shows up out of nowhere and reverts selected articles back to the version made by a blocked editor and continues the same arguments on the same talk pages picking right up as if nothing happened. Helpsome (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's back. Alltimeintheworld is the new sock. Helpsome (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks clear enough to me. I will extend the block of the IP and Fixed4u. Alltimeintheworld is indef blocked. If he continues to make new accounts, then all of his accounts will be indef blocked. 14:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Considering how easy it seems to be for this person to jump IPs and create new names you will probably be playing whack a mole for a while. Helpsome (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Report any other accounts here and they should be dealt with quickly. If he continues to evade the block by using multiple accounts, then his main account should be blocked indefinitely. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 14:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)