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

Noticeboard archives



Harassment and personal attacks by Dan56[edit]

Without commenting on the merits of the accusation I am closing this as unproductive with a warning to Dan56 that there are appropriate venues for these sorts of things. @Dan56: At this point the only remaining acceptable location to make accusations of sock puppetry against Rationalobserver is at WP:SPI with evidence. Further accusations outside this venue or without evidence may be interpreted at a personal attack. Chillum 17:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

On September 26, 2014 I opposed Dan's FAC nom based upon the FAC criteria and another user, Spike Wilbury's, earlier oppose for similar reasons. Dan56 then proceeded to badger the living daylights out of every comment I made until I was utterly exhausted. During that time, another editor also opposed the article's promotion.

Soon afterwards, Dan56 began a concerted effort to discredit me by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock. September 27, September 28, again on September 28, again on September 28, September 29, September 30, October 3, October 7, October 9, October 15, October 20, again on October 20, November 1, November 4, November 12, November 13, November 27, and again on December 2, and December 4.

I have repeatedly asked him to refrain from making baseless accusations: October 3, again on October 3, ditto, October 8, December 2 and again on December 2. All I am asking for is that Dan56 either, a) file an SPI report, or b) stop making baseless accusations. These continued false accusations constitute harassment designed to discredit and discourage me from editing Wikipedia, and they are personal attacks. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: If you think Rationalobserver is a sock of Jazzerino, you're the one who needs to come up with evidence and file a report. If you're not going to, stop posting accusations on random admins' talk pages. Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously. I mean, I'm not above calling out a duck when I see one, but I don't harp on it for weeks without filing a case at SPI. If this keeps up, we're going to be back here soon with a request for an interaction ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pinging Kww and Nikkimaria as they have been named in this. The edits above show that Dan56 is clearly hounding Rationalobserver, repeatedly assuming bad faith and repeating accusations of grave misconduct while taking care to avoid the proper venues for his allegations in which he would be required to provide evidence. It seems this is entirely in response to a FAC review which did not pass, which Dan seems to think will be resolved by attacking RO's character rather than address the issues which were brought up by several editors. As Dan seems to show no intent to stop this behaviour, I think it's time for him to drop this particular stick, and thus I propose that he be topic banned from FAC and interaction banned from interacting with Rationalobserver or commenting on her conduct anywhere on the encyclopedia. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm about 70% convinced that Dan56 is right, and that uncertainty on my part has frustrated Dan56 to no end. Normally, he reports a Jazzerino sock and I just block. In this case, Rationalobserver is probably a Jazzerino sock. I just haven't been able to bring myself to say that he is definitely a Jazzerino sock. Perhaps the thing to do is just tag this conversation with {{checkuser needed}} and see if we can get this resolved.—Kww(talk) 20:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Please list your evidence at the relevant SPI if you would like to request checkuser. All I see here is accusations without the necessary evidence and diffs. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ponyo, I'm not adverse to being checked, as I have nothing to hide, but the reason I filed this report was to put some closure to 6 weeks of continuous hounding. All I ask that an admin formally request that Dan56 either stop making accusations or file an SPI, as the way this sits now I don't see him stopping anytime soon, and he has already made me consider quitting. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, and I believe a number of editors responding here have explained to Dan56 that he needs to either file a report or stop making the accusations. My response above was just a reminder that an SPI needs to be opened to present the evidence as opposed to flagging a Checkuser via a template as was done by Kww in this thread.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I agree, but Dan56 has not even acknowledged this thread, so it's not at all clear that he has gotten the message. I.e., I'm not sure that this qualifies as an official admin warning. Does it? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure that excuses Dan56's behaviour - he could have just gone to SPI and let someone uninvolved have a look, instead of repeating accusations all over the place. However, I defer to your wisdom and have struck my call for a ban pending checkuser results. Ivanvector (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Normally, he reports a Jazzerino sock and I just block.
Huh? Are you saying that you block most everyone Dan56 accuses of being a sock without requiring Dan56 to file an SPI report? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
You can do this per WP:DUCK, though you really need to be very certain of it. Certainly doesn't apply to your case. Please, someone do the whole SPI/Checkuser thing so we can move on from this. It's not right to complain about it across the project like this. Figure it out or drop it already. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about this some more, I think it would be a good idea to formally restrict Dan56 from commenting on the likelihood of contributors misusing multiple accounts, unless he is doing so as an SPI report. He has done so again here in an entirely separate discussion. I think that is technically a topic ban. While he may have a point, if he is not intending to file a report then repeatedly accusing users of sockpuppetry is just plain uncivil and disruptive. Ivanvector (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I certainly don't mind being investigated, but Dan56 has been harassing me about this for more than 6 weeks now, so can this happen today please, so I can move on? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I presented possible evidence over the past few months at @Kww:'s talk page--User_talk:Kww#Possible_return_of_Jazzerino.2C_not_sure_though --> User_talk:Kww#RationalObserver Dan56 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Sergecross73, and Ponyo: Today, Dan56 continued to accuse me at every venue possible except SPI. Will someone please address this issue? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's nothing in what you linked except me updating a link at someone's talk page O.o Dan56 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about the fact that you've been asked by several admins to take your "evidence" to SPI, and your continued insistence on accusing me at admin talk pages has not abated. You are harassing me, and you should stop now! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Dan56, please calmly (and I cannot emphasis "calmly" enough) produce a listing of the parallels in an SPI report. I will comment on which of your parallels I think are strong enough to potentially justify a checkuser. Hopefully, we can get past this impasse. I don't find your evidence strong enough to block without a checkuser, but that's different from saying that your evidence isn't strong enough to warrant a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Hahc21[edit]

Hac21 has resigned his admin bit voluntarily. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

He has also withdrawn his Arbcom candidacy. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

When looking at the current ArbCom candidates, I noticed User:Hahc21, admin since March 2014.

Looking through his contributions, I noted that what we have here is an admin who created (in those days when he still was a content creator) a GA which was a massive copyright violation, even adding more copyvio paragraphs to it after these concerns had been raised at the peer review of it; who fully move-protected an article for "move-warring" when in reality he had been the only one ever to move it, and who made up a completely false reason when asked about it; who deleted an older article to move a newer article on the same subject over it, and sees no reason to restore the history of that page even when asked to do so; and who speedy deleted an article on a song by notable artists, with more than 100 reversions at the time, claiming that it was done under WP:NSONGS, which is not a speedy deletion criterion and specifically says to redirect instead. When confronted with all this, he claims to feel bad about the copyvio, and defends all his other actions to the end. I have linked to the evidence below.

I noticed a GA, San Antonio de la Eminencia castle, which I subsequently deleted as a copyright violation (translation of copyrighted texts). It turned out that Hahc21 was aware of these problems at the time but he gave a variety of reasons why he hadn't done anything about it[1][2][3][4], not all of them believable. No explanation was given on why he added a further copyvio section after the first concerns had been raised.

I then checked his admin actions, and encountered an at first sight recent misuse of protection. I asked him about this[5], but got no reply. So I went to his user talk page and repeated the question[6]. His reply, while plausible on the face of it, turned out to be completely incorrect[7]. He then undid the protection, but when asked for an explanation claimed "I don't think it was a mistake to do the protection, but I don't really care enough to try and defend it." and some other fluff.

This lead me to further look at some other admin actions he did, which I briefly described in this post. When asked to defend a speedy deletion of an article on a song by two notable artists, he replied "A simple answer: WP:NSONGS. Take a look at it." (with edit summary "basic policy knowledge"). Seeing how this answer was completely wrong and showed a disturbing pattern of misuse of admin tools and either lack of knowledge or lack of care about our policies, I warned him that I would start this section, giving him a final chance to go back and change his answer[8]. His final reply was "Sure, go ahead."

If some people can take a look and convince him to brush up on policies and actually follow them, it would be a nice improvement. Fram (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm looking at his AfD closes and accompanying deletes. Closing a string of AFD nominations by the same editor, with either no outside participation (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moxie Raia,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Lee) or where the only outside participation is contradicting the nomination argument (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Perry (singer)) seems rather dubious as well. A subject like Moxie Raia seems worthy of a real debate[9], not summary deletion. The same goes for Spencer Lee([10]). Fram (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I spot-checked some of the user's past and recent contributions and found a number of additional edits where it appears he has contributed non-free text, or translations of it, to articles. I've opened a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Hahc12. As I'm a CCI clerk I could self-endorse this but given this is a high-profile case it would be better if another clerk or administrator could review the request. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of the additional edits that might contain copyvios. They might be located here: Santa María de la Cabeza castle, Santa Rosa de la Eminencia castle and Solano castle. I'd appreciate if somebody could go and check if there are any copyvios and help me fix them. I know I should have done this ages ago but I completely forgot about it after I stopped working on these articles. → Call me Hahc21 14:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It is obvious that you have more serious issues with competence. After reading some of those AFDs, I have to ask if you have ever read Wikipedia:BEFORE. Don't you think that those listed AFDs should be reopened? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to remind you that Wikipedia:BEFORE applies to the filer of the AFD, not to the closer. That said, I closed these AFDs boldly, and I will happily apologize if it was a mistake. I already stopped doing such bold closes, and I will undelete and relist them if that's what's desired. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are talking about AFD closure, then you must know that you could have voted instead of deleting as there was no other vote. You haven't answered, so I have to re-ask: Do you think that those AFDs should be relisted? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Not "if that's what's desired", I asked for your own opinion in this matter. Bladesmulti (talk)
I was about to say the same thing, Blades -- the closer should only go on what's presented in the AfD. If she does her own research, that's risking a super!vote.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed the admin must go with the consensus but in these AFDs there was no vote except the nomination. In these types of AFDs, it is better to vote rather than delete. I didn't clarified but I was also talking about the speedy deletions that have been mentioned by the OP. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
if there is no vote, relist it. If it has been relisted twice and still no votes, do what you think is right. --Obsidi (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the discussion about the AFDs is a distraction. There are plenty of admins who consider uncontested AFDs akin to uncontested PRODS which can be deleted after 7 days (and its been the subject of considerable discussion). Yes, it might be preferable to opine there or to re-list but my understanding (with the caveat that I may well be technically wrong if one has since been introduced) is that there is no specific requirement in that regard. Beyond that, the appropriate place to discuss AFD closures is DRV, but I note that despite concerns about process, few here seem to actually advocate for an alternate outcome. I would think each would be considered well within discretion, though ill-advised. None of the advice above is bad advice, it's just not particularly relevant to the broader concerns expressed by the OP. Stlwart111 00:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Stalwart here. The AfDs are just another indication of the problems with the editor (and remember that he was banned from closing AfDs for three months at a time when he wasn't an administrator yet). The main problems are copyvio, some admin actions (protection for bogus reason, speedy deletion without a speedy argument), and the lack of WP:ADMINACCT afterwards (making up reasons for the protection, ignoring the evidence against it; not caring about preserving article history and attribution; and not knowing or caring about the difference between speedy policy and something like NSONGS). How hard can it be to reread WP:NSONGS and realise that it is not ever an acceptable reason to speedy delete a song article, instead of claiming that it is "basic policy knowledge" that an article on a song by notable artists can be speedied under that guideline... Fram (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

So how does someone known to violate copyright manage to get an admin position? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
With a bit of (bad) luck, you can soon change that question to "to get an ArbCom position"... The deleted copyvio article was even cited (by the nominator) as evidence of his best work in the 2nd RfA he tried. Hahc21 didn't feel the need to point out that that article (and a few similar ones apparently) might not be the best example to use. Fram (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it true, as he claims, that he only made this mistake early on, and that he doesn't violate copyrights anymore? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not "known to violate copyright." It happened once, several users weighted in to help, and it never happened again. had I been "known" for copyvio, I wouldn't have passed my RfA. Now, with regards to ADMINACCT: I explained my actions, and that's what's required. If Fram finds them to be insufficient or wrong, thats his assessment of the situation; it doesn't mean that I am not being held accountable. What it means is that he is not satisfied with my response. I am not required to do whatever is needed to satisfy him. I complied with ADMINACCT by answering his questions. → Call me Hahc21 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
ADMINACCT doesn't allow you to fabricate explanations out of thin air, or to completely misrepresent policies and guidelines (with the gall to call it "basic policy knowledge"). If, despite all this, you still feel that you have explained your actions adequately, then I seriously have to wonder whether you are fit to be an admin. As for the copyvio, note how User:Psychonaut listed multiple other articles where he feared copyvio's by you might have happened, apart from the multiple articles you listed here. But you are right, had it been known at the time of the RfA that you violated copyright, you wouldn't have passed it. Sadly, it wasn't known at the time, but it is now. Fram (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the problematic edits I identified in my spot checks span a period from January 2013 to April 2014, and cover several different articles. Unless I'm mistaken in my assessment, I don't think it's correct to say that the problem happened only once, nor that you never repeated the problematic behaviour after being notified about it (which was back at the beginning of this period, in January 2013). —Psychonaut (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Psychonaut: I re-cheked the CCI request, and I see the edits you highlighted there. Yes, I used to extract, from the sources, the information I was going to work with to make the job of writing much easier and organized. I then removed all the html text before moving the article to mainspace. I was not an admin back then so I was unable to delete the revisions that contained the hidden HTMl text, but I will do so now if necessary. I didn't consider it to be a copyright violation back then, given that i) it was hidden, ii) was not in mainspace, and iii) was used temporarily and was never part of the visible text. If it's considered a copyright violation, I'll make sure it won't happen again. → Call me Hahc21 13:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hahc21, can you for once try to check the facts before you post an answer? this is one of the highlighted edits. It was made on 19 March 2014, six days after you became an admin[11] and started deleting articles[12]. So your "I was not an admin back then" statement is obviously incorrect. You then give three reasons why it wasn't a copyvio anyway, including "1: it wasn't visible" and "3: [...] was never part of the visible text". However, the same example given by Psychonaut was visible from the 19th[13] until the 25th[14], or 6 days. How hard can it be to give a correct answer about your own actions? How are you going to work as an arb if you aren't able to check even the simplest things like this history, and if people can't trust any statement you make? Fram (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess you are so biased towards whatever purpose you are (unsuccessfully) trying to accomplish that you can't even take the time to ask me what exactly was I addressing. Not that it matters to you, given all your comments here. I am happy that the ArbCom elections will be over in 3 days, and all the harassment with it. And now the facts: this is not a copyvio. → Call me Hahc21 14:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec, will check your reply now)Me: "you are wrong, because of evidence #1, evidence #2, ...". You" "no, you are wrong". Note the difference? It is not "harassment" to look at the edits and admin actions of an ArbCom candidate, note some serious problems with them, ask questions about them, and then note that the answers are completely insufficient and unreliable, display a shocking lack of knowledge of our policies, and an equally shocking indifference to this. But feel free to show me where I am wrong and tell us what you were addressing. It will be much more effective and convincing than another "poor prosecuted me" post. Fram (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, "the facts". Changing your answer and ignoring the holes in your previous one is not "the facts"... So, what edits were you referring to when you said they were made before you became an admin and were invisible all the time? Fram (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If you came to my talk page with these concerns in an appropriate way, it would have been different. But when I had you on the questions page, then questions talk page, then my talk page and now ANI, I do believe that your behaviour is concerning. Highligting the mistakes of an administrator is always a good thing. Providing evidence so that the administrator can fix their behaviour is good. But following said admin around Wikipedia is not good. Putting random diffs to "prove" that your are correct without actually suggesting ways to fix said behaviour is not good. Trying to make a big deal about issues that are not a problem anymore is not good. Did I make copyvios, yes; do I aknowledge it? yes; did I continue? No. You seem to fail to understand that. What do you hope to accomplish? A desysop? I passed my RfA because the community believed I was mature enough to identify my mistakes and fix them, not because they weren't aware of them. I already know that you don't want me to become an arbitrator. The way to express such feelings is to write a guide and vote against me using the SecurePoll interface. Going around the website splashing your thoughts the way you did on my questions page is very inappropriate and problematic. I'm not the first one you go after, but it won't work with me. → Call me Hahc21 15:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) If your asnwers had been slightly believable, it would have stayed at your talk page. "Following said admin around Wikipedia"? Where did I follow you around Wikipedia? I deleted one of your articles as a copyvio, I raised my concerns about this, and I did not undo one other edit you made, I did not reply to any discussion you participated in (which I hadn't started first). I checked your edits, yes, it's a bit hard to see whether an error is occasional or part of a larger pattern without doing that. I raised these further issues at the questions page, got no answer, went to your talk page, got an insufficient answer (well, a heap of nonsense couples with a total lack of knowledge and insight on your side), and found this sufficiently problematic to bring it here. This is standard procedure, not some evil harassment.

"Putting random diffs to "prove" that you are correct"? Care to explain which of my diffs were random and not relevant to the discussion? Suggesting ways to fix your behaviour? Yes, write the truth and check your facts. Don't make up incorrect excuses ("I wasn't an admin at the time"! "It was never visible"!), don't invent policy rules even after you have been challenged on them ("NSONGS allows me to speedy delete Physical (Enrique Iglesias song)", even though NSONGS doesn't make this claim but suggests redirecting, and A7 specifically excludes creative works), and don't be surprised if someone people think you are unfit to be an arbitrator or an admin if you can't follow these first two advices. Yes, you passed your RFA. That doesn't give you some form of immunity. Fram (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to fix the copyvios myself si if somebody weighs in, I would be grateful. is Hahc21's most recent comment on his talk page, and I believe here before he gets into a fight with Fram about ArbCom voting. I'm really concerned about the user's understanding of copyright policy, specifically their admission and demonstration in several places that they don't actually understand any of the copyright policy. There's comments like If it's considered a copyright violation, I'll make sure it won't happen again. which appear to suggest that Hahc is going to be reliant on other users to determine what is and isn't a copyright violation. We can't have administrators going around with such ignorance of one of our most important policies.
I didn't consider it to be a copyright violation back then, given that i) it was hidden, ii) was not in mainspace, and iii) was used temporarily and was never part of the visible text. Thinking that copyright violations can only exist in mainspace and only in the most recent revision of an article are frightening admissions and enormously concerning. I was taught and have always worked on the basis that any revision which can be permanently linked to by a normal user should be free from copyright violations.
I think, if I'm being honest, I'd be expecting a resignation here. The copyright violations are concerning, the underlying reasons for them are enough reason to suggest Hahc21 shouldn't be an administrator charged with dealing with copyright violations, and the extremely hostile responses to Fram really raise my concern. I'd expect, in the absence of a resignation, someone familiar with copyright policy and mentoring to pair up with Hahc and get them up to speed on policy as quickly as possible, and we'll just have to live with an admin who might never get copyright, but I'd prefer Hahc to resign, get up to speed and be re-assessed by the community. Nick (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
From what I'm seeing here, Hahc21 is unfit to be an admin, much less an arbcom member. In fact, his casual attitude toward copyright suggests he should be banished from Wikipedia altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've just spent about 2 hours going over Hahc21's Wiki career and frankly it has left me greatly disturbed. Although I have voted on almost every RfA over the past 5 years, the first two closed so quick I didn't have a chance, and the successful one took place when I was on a Wikibreak - if one can really call it successful - IMO if an consensus had been drawn on the strength of the arguments alone instead of the usual vote count percentage, the result may have been different but we leave our closing Bureacrats no options. As one user who is highly critical of our RfA system I feel that this is one occasion where an RfA failed to do its job. I'm afraid I tend to agree with commenters who perceive hat collecting and I see a determined climb up a greasy pole, especially in the light of a current Arbcom candidature. Born of my research and the issues brought up here by Fram including, and most worrying, the 'self' protection mentioned below, I think we are already past 'taking a look and convincing him to brush up on policies and actually follow them' , I regret to admit that I consider this a case for escalation and where contrary to Wikipedia general practice, the user's pattern of participation on Wikipedia, rather than some isolated incident, should be take into consideration with a view to applying some kind of sanctions that would prevent the use of admin tools and judgement. He could of course opt to do the honourable thing, as Nick suggests, and fall on his sword. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Kudpung, I don't want to pile on wrt this particular RFA (I was also absent and did not weigh in), but this RFA business is by no means new or unique. Over and over and over again (and even with Featured content standards declining to a point of being hardly distinguishable from GA), RFA candidates put up their "Featured" content as samples, and they pass without anyone scrutinizing that same content. Many times when I have scrutinized poor content that passed GA, DYK, FA whatever, I've been skewered for assaulting the poor children (which I've always had to do when encountering an RFA that already has multiple pile-on supports), so weighing in on RFAs no longer interests me much. What RFA "voters" really need to begin to look at are the new "standards" at FAC, but then they've rarely looked at the standards at DYK or GAN or anywhere else when RFA candidates offer their "content contributor" records , so ... just some context for you and Baseball Bugs on the rhetorical, "how did this happen at RFA?" It happens All The Time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I ran for admin once, in 2009. If standards have dropped this low, maybe I should try again. I would start with an advantage, never having been accused of copyright violations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I agree with you, I do, I do. Contrary to what some believe, rather than wanting all candidates to pass, I always oppose if I have to, and I am still hoping that one day the drive-by and peanut gallery 'support' voters will learn to do some research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Bibliography of encyclopedias and some related articles on both encyclopedias and reference works in general are being developed to make it easier to do just that. They won't help as much with those areas which experience a lot of "breaking developments," but they can be useful in other areas. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully create-protecting a page while you are writing a draft article?[edit]

Could you please explain why you create-protected Ancient Trader on 28 March 2014, so that only sysops (i.e., you) could create it? You were working on a draft at the time, and the only other activity was from 2010, nearly three years earlier, so it doesn't look as if there was any need for protection, except to make sure that no one else created it while you were making your draft (you started on the draft on 17 March, and moved it to the mainpage on April 4). Is there some other plausible explanation I am missing here? Fram (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hahc21 I'd like an explanation for that too. Otherwise it looks to me like Fram's conclusion is apt, and if so this is antithetical to how this place is supposed to work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Insures the chance for a Dyk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.34.210 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

I would like to suggest to User:Hahc21 that before further embarrassing behaviors come to light and the community sees a need to act, he voluntarily resign as an admin and step down as a candidate for ArbCom. BMK (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


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


Revdel needed for possible outing.[edit]

I'm not sure who He'll in a Bucket is but I live in Colorado says so on my userpage ;) but I'm not sure that the other part is public info and I believe is an attempt to out another editor. Currently User:Lightbreather is in a witchunt trying to prove another editor is User:Sue Rangell. It appears that attempts to match her to other people or reveal her family ties is what is going on here. [[15]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

While the edit summary should probably be revdelled and LB was unwise to do so (WP:TROUT), especially while already under sanction. the WP:BAIT and gravedancing that she was responding to are mitigating to some degree. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure the problem is she has shown she is very aware of the WP:OUTING policy as shown by her own userpage, and for the record if anyone is wondering my connection is through Comcast and I get aweird ip address Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I have revdel'd the edit summary as it is better safe than sorry when dealing with the release of identifying information. I will leave it to others to decide if further action/warning is needed. Chillum 17:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In case you are curious. 2601:1:C080:EEF:D188:D408:3BBD:2D14 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The postings on Lightbreather's talk page are helping no one, including Lightbreather. It would be beneficial all round if, for a short period, it were fully protected and Lightbreather blocked from it. DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on the matter, but I just turned down the RFPP request asking to semi-protect her page, since Lightbreather is an autocinfirmed user, and semi-protection would have no effect. If she needs to be stopped, she has to be reblocked with the talk page access withdrawn (again, I have no idea on whether this is actually needed).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Ymblanter It would stop the IPs from posting to her page and baiting her tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A good point, thanks. Now indeed I see a couple of IPs posting earlier today, at least one of them clearly not constructive. Semi-protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Ymblanter made the right move. Baiting was going on. Chillum 20:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That being said, this sock puppet investigatory business needs to stop. I've seen many an admin say talk page access is for appealing blocks. She's been shown far too much leeway already.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 21:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk page access is not solely for appealing blocks. --NE2 21:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Two kinds of pork, this is the case for for bans but more leeway is given for blocked users. Chillum 21:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Two kinds of pork if you hear an admin say that about blocked (not banned) users, tell them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong. It's a frustratingly common misconception and it leads to a lot of really unnecessary meddling from admins and gadflies. Protonk (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If you want to to really technical then in the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned. This actually applies in a lot of cases, though not saying it applies here. Chillum 03:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI, requests to revdelete outing shouldn't be posted here, because that's just giving a big audience to info that shouldn't be here in the first place. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, according to the page for revdel, it should be done via email to administrators, on their talk page (Which I consider to be bad form) or in #wikipedia-en-revdel IRC channel. Tutelary (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Request from EChastain re blocked user Lightbreather's continuing to post allegations against me on her talk page[edit]

WITHDRAWN:

Request withdrawn by OP. NE Ent 20:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I would appreciate that something done regarding blocked Lightbreather who continues to post allegations against me on her talk page. She was blocked 1:00, 1 December 2014 by Salvio giuliano for socking, and her block modified after another sock of her's was discovered removing comments from her on an arbcon talk page. Since her block she has used her talk page to provide a running list of allegations against others, but primarily against me in an attempt to prove I'm a sock of Sue Rangell (and without notifying me when she is doing so). Another editor has been ferrying her "evidence" to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell[16] and updating them.[17] Anyone looking at the actual evidence in her diffs can tell the evidence is ridiculous. Contrary to Lightbreather's claims I registered my account on 20:23:09 12/10/2014, before she announced she had been driven off wikipedia, so my motivation to open an account was not her announcement. I have no idea why she's picked me to target as Sue Rangell's sock.

Today (4 December) she added (bolding hers): "If she did discover my real-life ID, then Sue Rangell knows that I have a personal connection to a place that was the topic of the very first article EChastain edited[18] after creating her account." Her continued posting of evidence against me resulted in me over-defending myself (as I've been told by several editors) and afraid to edit articles because Lightbreather may spuriously connect me to Sue Rangell somehow through another article edit. This is extremely stressful.

I request that either Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell be closed, or Lightbreather's be prevented from adding further evidence against me on her talk page. EChastain (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Ah, the gift that keeps on giving. Where to start? The users referred to here but not mentioned are, I presume, TParis and Gaijin42, two editors in whom I have some faith. TParis is an admin: if Lightbreather's commentary was problematic he could have chosen to revoke talk page access. Also, that SPI will be closed when someone gets to it and sifts through the evidence. That your account, your edits raised some suspicion should not come as a surprise to you, a seasoned editor.

    Having pontificated one way, there's another way as well. I think it's been a few days since TParis was involved on that talk page, so while he may not have considered Lightbreather's activity to be problematic, by now it's a bit much: let's remember that for a blocked user the talk page is to request unblocks--continued contributions to an SPI while serving a block for socking and outing (ah, the irony!) is not what the talk page is for. Now, Lightbreather has yelled at me enough for her to claim that I'm INVOLVED, so I won't yank TPA, but I think another admin should have a careful look at this: this ongoing involvement with investigations in other editors, I don't think this is OK. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Drmies! I think quite a few admins consider themselves involved, so many editors having had unpleasant experiences with her. I've spent the day looking into her archives since she started editing a little over a year ago. Nothing good there; she caused a lot of disruption. She disregarded all the suggestions of her mentor, StarryGrandma, but left one of her "I am retiring from Wikipedia" messages to her with "I wanted to make my last edit to be a goodbye to you." If only! I'm losing interest anyway. If editors like her are coddled, then no wonder wikipedia is losing editors! EChastain (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Propose one or two way IBAN EChastain is to steer clear of LB and LB is to stop with her pursuit of EChastain. Enough is enough, I and a few other editors have been trying to refuse the problem with no luck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, Crazy! The only interactions I've ever had with Lightbreather were when she posted on my talk page, when I tried to help her after her block (big mistake - have you actually looked at those diffs?), and my replies to her evidence, which she completely ignored, habbing it and eventually removed. I have no desire to have any contact with her at all. I think you don't understand what's been going on. I really wish you'd just look through her archives (they're very short) so you'll see a little more her MO. She's a one case example of why Eric Corbett is absolutely right in his views about civility. EChastain (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Im not going to bring Eric into this as it has nothing to do with him, what I am proposing is a one way ban that deals with LB interacting in anyway towards you. I feel enough time has been wasted here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to bring Eric into this! Don't know where you get that idea. It's just that all this is about the GGTF arbcom where some were outraged that he wasn't banned for incivility. And Lightbreather perfectly illustrates that civility is not a matter of using "bad" words. She's been disruptive for over a year, but because she's civil she's enabled. Don't bother with a one-way ban. I don't care anymore. In fact, it's becoming funny. EChastain (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well if you don't care anymore and im using your words here then why did you start this topic in the first place here? At lest three editors have told you so far to just ignore it something you have yet to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's your responses to this whole thing, starting with the userbox issue, that leads me to think this whole thing is ridiculous. You don't seem to understand anything I say. Like thinking I want to bring Eric Corbett into this. Did you pay any attention to the arbcom where Lightbreather was caught to be extensively socking? Then caught again, after she was blocked? That was about Eric Corbett, and editors like Lightbreather completely vindicate him in my eyes. EChastain (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying either, a one way I-ban here would prevent LB from interacting with you. you are the one who threw Eric's name in here not me. What is clear is that you are going after LB just as LB is going after you. Yes LB socked she was banned so in turn she accused you of socking as for the incivility bit that comes down to opinion. Are you trying to compare editors in terms of civility? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, Knowledgekid87, after you posted on her talk today, her edit summary (in which she removed your post) had to be redelved (or whatever the word is).[19] And now she's assembling evidence against that IP 172.56.9.95, whose comment you supported on her talk. EChastain (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw that, look im not saying you are wrong LB is behaving really badly that is clear but per WP:ROPE if she does continue the behavior do you really think she is going to be around much longer? You are going after LB because you feel she gets away with a-lot am I right? The SPI will close and nothing will be done, when her block is up if she continues then she will be re-blocked for a longer period of time if she continues to disrupt, that is my prediction. At least you are listening to others here more than LB. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
yeah, I don't really care what happens to Lightbreather, and I'm starting to enjoy her continuing talk posts road show, now that I've figured out that TParis actually posted twice for her on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell, but wasn't transparent about it, so I couldn't tell what was going on. But transparency isn't a strong suit of wikipedia, as who ever those are who allege cabalism are kind of right I think. I'll withdraw this whole thing. Don't want the circus of ineptness to stop! So . . .
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I request to withdraw this ANI request. EChastain (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


IBAN violations by User:The Rambling Man, further evidence[edit]

I've blocked TRM for 48 hours for violations of his IBANs with Medeis and Baseball Bugs. In addition to the mess below, this is a clear reference to BB. I'm incredulous that this is still going on after nearly a year. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

See 2014 Grozny clashes

Well, once again, TRM has reverted my edits in violation of the IBAN and in support of his opposition to an ITN nomination: diff 1 Diff 2. I have restored the material, and am bringing it to admin attention again. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's where I originally added the material which TRM reverted in full: diff

Here's TRM once again reverting me after he's been notified of this complaint, and of his previous reversion: diff μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Zomg. Oh my god, I had no idea. I'm so sorry, I can't even believe that Medeis was editing mainspace articles, when did that start? I'm glad she reverted my edits and hopefully she'll revert all the other improvements to the article I've made. Now then, can we rapidly get to the end game where someone decides this is it? I am now beyond sick of this endless game-playing and double-teaming to get me chastised, blocked, desysopped, whatever. I have no more energy for this. Let the show commence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Assuming this comment is sincere, I am just going to revert your edit
Sure, undo all the improvements I made. That'll really help the encyclopaedia, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs and previous evidence of TRM's IBAN violations. I don't want TRM banned or Desysopped, although his suggestion is interesting. I want the IBAN enforced, and it is solely he who keeps violating it. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Here we not only have TRM deleting material, but also restoring tags when previously attributed material, and material directly quoted by the refs given (WaPO and NYT) is provided. The action is petulant, and has nothing to do with improving the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis directly reverts my edits? Come on.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice that not only is TRM reverting my edits because they are mine, but also reverting identical edits by other users Catlemur when they coincide with mine. Please note the two refs at the end of the sentence directly support the claim TRM challenges. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that it is evident that neither editor understands WP:ATTRIB. But never mind, we got there in the end, didn't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please note the article has been posted, regardless of TRM's personal attacks against the editors contributing to it. diff. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    Personal attacks? I'm glad all the work I put into the article has yielded a successful outcome! The Rambling Man (talk)
  • @Medeis, The Rambling Man: Alright, now that y'all have had your say about this matter, could y'all just let it rest until others respond here? I'm sure the last thing either of you wants to do is bicker with/about each other (or at least I would hope), so take a break and disengage for a while while other people take a look. Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not happy about this. The Rambling Man was clearly trying to improve the article, yet Medeis reverts [20] with an edit-summary of "IBAN prevents TRM from undoing my edits" despite the fact that the edit she inserted is full of errors (the dates should be in brackets, and the sentence "The 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis begun by Chechen and Ingush insurgents ending with the death of 385 people." is illiterate). Sigh... Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Calling TRM's actions improvements is largely a joke. (He opposed the article at ITN and tagged and reverted the article repeatedly.) Here I doubled the article's length. Here I added a background section and here TRM reverts it entirely. Here TRM reverts a section, and due to his own action, downgrades the article to a stub. Of course TRM did do some dash formatting with rude edit summaries, which anyone who wants can read by checking the page history.
If there was a problem with the dates not being in brackets, (and I admit I have no idea what you are talking about, User:Sigh), TRM could have simply added said brackets. Instead, TRM opposed the nomination, and repeatedly reverted material he was aware I had added, including hidden comments, that raised the article above stub status.
TRM's rather nasty "cleaning up your mess" edit summaries are there for all to see. And, nevertheless, the article got posted. Bottom line is, TRM repeatedly attacks me and reverts me while I do nothing of the sort to him. There's an IBAN between us and if it won't be enforced when he breaks it I expect it to be lifted. If that needs to be addressed at some sort of double secret probation page, please let me know. Otherwise, please tell TRM to cut out the endless violations of the IBAN, and penalize him if he doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Both TRM and Medeis are valued contributors, but it seems that they are largely incapable of being around each other without getting on each others nerves. There is already an IBAN in place, but it doesn't seem to have ended the issues and it has bounced back to ANI repeatedly. In part, that is because many people seem reluctant to block either party over this silliness, but it is also because there is a lot of subjectivity about what counts as "interaction" especially when you both seem to want to participate at many of the same pages. With that in mind, maybe it is time to consider adopting some rules that are less subjective. My suggestions would be:

  1. Medeis and TRM may not comment in any discussion section (e.g. talk page thread, ITN nomination, Ref Desk thread) where the other person has already commented.
  2. Medeis and TRM may not edit any article, Wikipedia page, or other content page that the other person has previously edited within the prior 24 hours.

The initial violation of such rules may be enforced by reversion (optional) and the issuance of a warning to the violating party. Such reversions and warning may be performed by anyone. Any subsequent violation at the same location after a warning is to be enforced by a 24 hour block.

Personally, I think such rules amount to treating Medeis and TRM as something akin to petulant children who can't stand to be in the same room, but maybe that is what needs to happen here. If both parties want to agree to this arrangement, I would be willing to be one of the people to help enforce it. If either Medeis or TRM would prefer some different outcome here, then I would like to hear some suggestions for other concrete and easily enforceable rules that could put an end to the arguments. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

PS. I started writing this before TRM was blocked; however, I continue to think that less subjective rules that create a greater degree of separation might be helpful here. Dragons flight (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Subjective? Absolutely not. There's not a single accusation against me or BB, and moral equivalence to avoid taking sides between victims and wrongdoers is simply evil. Start a new thread showing misbehavior on my part. (I have no problem with TRM continuing his contributions at ITN and elsewhere, subject to the IBAN, which also constrains myself and others.) TRM's had a year to do so. This IBAN was worked out over several months last winter with input from dozens of editors, and all that has happened is what needs to happen: the IBAN has been enforced. Can someone re-archive and fully close this? μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me be careful to say that I don't think you are equivalent, either in general, or in this particular sequence of events. In my estimation, TRM pushes the boundary more than you do. That said, even if you do it less often, pushing the IBAN boundary has not been entirely one-sided. For example, a month ago TRM posted an ITN and you were the first one to call for it to be pulled (i.e. in effect, directly criticizing his action). Over the months, I've noticed several other examples where I would say you are commenting on something TRM did, and given how often you overlap at ITN and Ref Desk I don't think it would be hard to find others. I'm not going to go digging for examples, as I not trying to be hostile towards you nor would I want any actions to be taken based on old evidence. However, I do want to make the more general point that both of you could avoid a lot of grief if you would both do a better job of staying away from each other. I suggested some rules to create more of a separation, but if you don't want that, then fine. I don't plan on forcing you into it. Dragons flight (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: A one-sided ban, despite a breach by Medeis too? Laser Brain, your name does not live up to your action here. It's either both or none, because at the moment your action is a poor one. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment So let me get this right: An incompetent editor adds incorrect information to an article and when noticed, an editor of good standing fixes it. The good standing editor is then banned for "interacting" with the incompetent editor and the incompetent editor is allowed to continue on his mission of writing bullshit which has more holes in it than cheese. What a sad state of affairs! Cassiantotalk 10:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BANEX allows "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once)." So although opening the ANI request in response to an obvious WP:IBAN violation re "undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)," the repeated replies after TRM posted were violations, too. NE Ent 10:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to see past the rules sometimes as in some cases, the rules just don't work, like here. It is tragic that we elect to honour the rules of an essay over fixing incorrect information to the encyclopedia. We have to ask ourselves this, what is more important? We, after all, are all here to improve the project which TRM has done. Having to speak to someone he has had previous issues with is part of the course. Cassiantotalk 10:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Although TRM did not act wisely here in letting himself get sucked into this, I do not understand why Medeis was not also blocked - not even warned! - for breaching the IBAN e.g. Medeis reverting TRM by reference to the IBAN (!!), removing a stub tag that TRM had added, his interaction with TRM above... No wonder TRM feels unfairly treated. Were it not the case that I have previously said in these discussions that I regard my WP-friendship with TRM as disqualifying me from using admin tools around him, I would consider either unblocking him or blocking Medeis, given the disparity of treatment. Perhaps Laser brain would care to comment. BencherliteTalk 11:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not a good block, although it may have been less bad if Medeis had been blocked as well; I don't understand why she hasn't been. It does not look good for Wikipedia when an editor is blocked for edits that improved the encyclopedia, whilst the other party is not sanctioned for edit warring errors into the article. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments Good morning, everyone. I knew this block would be unpopular and that I would wake up today to various criticism, both public and private. It's all been fair for the most part, so I'll do my best to expound on what seem to be the key questions: Why did I block TRM, and why didn't I block Medeis?
I thought my reasons for the first were clear. As noted, this has been going on for a year. I tried to mediate this situation back in January, and it finally evolved into an IBAN which had strong community consensus at the time. It's been completely without teeth up until now, for various reasons. I've been monitoring it, though, especially the firm warning from Bishonen to TRM back in May that if he continued to "pick at his topic ban" he would be blocked. He's continued the same behavior. I spent an hour reviewing diffs last night before I finally decided that a block might send a message that it's not acceptable. Nothing until now has appeared to get that message through. Sadly, he's still trying to claim that he's not targeting these editors with his digs.
Why didn't I block Medeis? Simply, this and other times it has been TRM who has decided to enter the arena, whether he wants to admit it or not. He decided to get involved directly where Medeis was working and start a conflict. I don't think Medeis reacted ideally to this situation, and as NE Ent pointed out, they should have reported the violation and walked away. I accept blame for not issuing a warning to Medeis, but I don't think they should be blocked. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this project, we are often lenient with editors when they react badly to provocation. This was my logic.
All that said, I don't (and never do) have a problem with anyone undoing my actions if they are seen to be incorrect. I personally will not be unblocking TRM because, looking at his Talk page, I don't see that he has accepted any responsibility or even that he's erred in the slightest. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well you may have 'had the guts to block an admin', to paraphrase one of your talk page fans, but it's a shame you don't have the ability to see when you've been played by Medeis and the tag team that has brought this to ANI 4? 5? 6? times already in order to kid an admin into taking the wrong step. Not blocking Medeis for being as equally culpable as TRM is very, very poor: you need to "have the guts" to own up to poor decisions sometimes too, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's tone it down. I recommend starting a fresh discussion about how to create a successful interaction ban, if one is needed, and if we can't get something that works, I recommend taking the matter to arbitration so that it can be finally resolved. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, the ad hominems start, eh SchroCat? I'm not a 'fan', I've never interacted with Laser Brain before that I can recall and his talk page certainly isn't on my watchlist. Try not to hurt your back stretching so far to make a martyr out of TRM. You'd think after comment after comment by TRM about Medeis in conversations that had nothing to do with TRM but he interjected himself so many times about Medeis got involved might someday deserve some form of "reminder" to TRM to stay away from Medeis. They do not get along, they are disruptive when they interact. That is the point of an interaction ban. TRM might be the more quality editor, but if we are not going to enforce a community consensus for an IBan to avoid disruption then you might as well get rid of IBan's all together and create a ladder of quality editors with a rank order so we all know the people above us not to piss off and we know the people below us we can pick on. Better yet, create a page of levels and achievements so I can get level 90 and pawn all the n00bs with my epic Sword of I'm Awesomesauce and we can really make this an RPG instead of trying to maintain some level of decency and collaboration.--v/r - TP 17:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There are no ad hominem comments, so please do not try and smear by innuendo. I am also not trying to make a martyr of anyone, so perhaps you should re-read what I've written. To clarify (I.e. To repeat so you don't have to search through for the three of four times I said this): the block was poor because both were culpable and if you block one, you need to block both. That's it, end of story, so there's no need for you to try and prolong the dramah needlessly, and certainly not against me. Perhaps next time you should keep your comments to yourself, especially when the affair is largely resolved? - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Unblock request, etc.[edit]

Unblocked Jehochman Talk 16:37, 5 December 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 ask that The Rambling Man's block be lifted, provided that Medeis agrees.

This is by no means a criticism of the admin who blocked him. I just think unblocking is the fair thing to do at this point.

As regards the interaction ban in general, it was apparently imposed "by the community", not by ArbCom, which perhaps allows more flexibility. Once a year has passed, which would be sometime in January as I recall, the ban could be altered or abolished. All things considered, that might be the best thing going forward. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep block - While I am willing to acknowledge TRM's contributions to the project, their abrasive manner and flouting of the IBAN is more than enough reason to uphold this block. I speak here as a longtime contributor at ITN who finds TRM highly unpleasant and uncollegial. I make no comment on blocking anyone else, but am moved to speak out here in support of an admin action I agree with. Frankly I would support an extension, given the lack of contrition currently expressed on their talk page. Jusdafax 11:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Support Unblock It is not at all clear who he was referring to or responding to with his post, that and Medeis has been running to this board repeatedly trying to get TRM blocked, ala The BetaCommand saga, where enough crap was thrown on the wall that something finally stuck.

Bad block all the way around, unblock suggested. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep block I'm somewhat in two minds about this. One the one hand, I agree that this wasn't the best thing to block over since it appears TRM's edits were largely improving wikipedia even if the motiviations are suspect. On the other hand, from the little I've seen TRM has been flouting their IBAN regularly, usually by jibes clearly directed primarily at one or both of the people they have an IBAN with even if the person isn't named and the post is indented generally. So we could unblock and then just wait for the next violation and block again. But I get the feeling if we unblock now we're far less likely to block again in the future and it's clear that something has to be done to convince TRM (and probably μηδείς) to stop their IBAN violations. And this was an IBAN violation, even if the for once, they were actually doing something useful rather than simply sniping at others. Ultimately, as with most bans, when you've lost the right to carry out certain edits, you've lost the right. It's acceptable to sanction you for your edits even if they seem to be helpful, particularly when you've persistently violated your ban and generally not in such a good way. Dragon's Flight comment above is also a good summary of my thoughts. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep block - Had TRM not made his "interesting comments" above, I would support an unblock, but he appears to regard this as recess time in an elementary school playground :(. It is,moreover, disingenuous to believe TRM was not making remarks about those whom he is IBanned from. Collect (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This page isn't votes for (un)blocks. I've discussed the matter with the blocking admin and unblocked. No further action is required, unless there is a future breach of the interaction ban. TRM has been very thoroughly informed about it and knows he risks a block for any violation, so hopefully there will be none. Jehochman Talk 16:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Slow-motion 3RR[edit]

RESOLVED:

User warned. Please report at WP:AN3 if the problem persists.  Philg88 talk 16:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi,

Мехтех (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in a slow-paced edit war over Airborne aircraft carrier. They insist on adding material which does not belong there, repeatedly doing so on [13 Nov],[15 Nov], [22 Nov], [26 Nov], and now on [4 Dec].

This is effectively a slo-mo breach of 3RR.

We have discussed this on the talk page at Talk:Airborne aircraft carrier#Carrier aircraft and aircraft carriers, and warned the user both there and on their talk page:User talk:Мехтех#November 14.

This user is clearly unwilling to play by our rules. Can somebody block this account for say 1 month to try and get the message across? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

He's now been fully warned. He's repeatedly adding something about a Russian aircraft carrier that people on the talk page don't believe fits with this article. If he reverts again, report at WP:AN3 or leave me a message. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry, I forgot about AN3. I am happy for this discussion to be closed now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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


User:Pbergeot[edit]

No action necessary. Stefan2 please take note of the coments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

This user continues to add a non-free image to Draft:Goverlan Systems Management in violation of WP:NFCC#9 despite warnings. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The image is the Goverlan logo and goes with the article Goverlan Systems Management. From reading the non-free image criteria I could not find a reason that this logo should be deleted. I updated the file to point to the correct article, so I don't understand why you keep deleting it. --User:Pbergeot — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

As it is not used in any article, it must be deleted. As Draft:Goverlan Systems Management is not an article, the page mustn't contain any non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok. I understand. Thank you for clarifying that. --User:Pbergeot (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (EST)

  • Stefan2, if you had said that, in human language, on the editor's talk page before you slapped all those preformatted warnings there, all this could have been avoided. you do a lot of good things here, but REALLY, do you have to bite this badly? Fewer templates, more written words please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Quercetin[edit]

Editorial work on this page is being made challenging by the persistent insertions of material that does not meet WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS. Novice users, who members of WT:MED group say are known students in a university-level biology course, are inserting material repeatedly without acceptance by experienced Wikipedians. On one student user's Talk page, Rozo93, is stated that the inserted content is needed to demonstrate proficiency for a biology assignment! I'm requesting a block of 3 novice editors sparring on the Quercetin article content: Rozo93, Isabel.guillen.5 and M.diop2011. Zefr (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Have fully protected for a week as two of the users were simply adding plagiarism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Zefr, I've already discussed this with Doc James. I've run similar course based Wikipedia editing assignments for several years with very good results and have not had a problem of this magnitude before with improper referencing. The students know the difference between primary and secondary sources, but I'm guessing that this was in part a case of laziness. One or more of them did not actually read what they were referencing, and they did not read the detailed |instructions provided for them. I will deal with the plagiarism internally and the offending students will not be attempting to edit the Quercetin page again. My apologies, NeuroJoe (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I only found obvious problems with two of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is admin action required? Yes. I disagree with the professor's characterization of his course work, and that he is now operating his course outside of the Education Program is creating a problem. What occurred at quercetin is pretty much the same as meat puppetry, with a group of editors working in collaboration. NeuroJoe should be told to register a course and work with the Education Program, or perhaps admin tools need to be used to encourage him to do that.

From my response to NeuroJoe at User talk:Doc James: We don't know if what you represent is true because a) you have apparently decided to no longer run a course page, making it harder for us to check your students' edits, and b) your students tend to edit on obscure topics, so the problems may be going undetected. Even more so now that your course has essentially "gone underground" (no course page).

Certainly, as to past problems, your students did not understand primary sources when I encountered them in 2011, and my experience with your course led me to resign as FAC delegate to attempt to get some change (unsuccessful) in the Education Program. Your students' involvement forced me to clean up an obscure topic from my content area about which there is basically NO secondary review information, period, so I was forced to carefully use their primary sources to fix their work. The article is a stretch, since it is basically trying to eek permissible information out of primary sources.

So, now, you are appear to be operating outside of the Education Program, making more work for regular editors (these problems should be dealt with by the paid staff of the Education Program, not us), and making it impossible to know who your students are and which articles they may have damaged with copyvio.

And your statement that "all stand in much better shape" is not because of your students. I had to edit the obscure klazomania stub into compliance with policy and guideline, spending inordinate amounts of time trying to correct your student edits on an obscure topic that gets less than 20 page views per day. That article is improved because of MY time, not your students, and my time could have been used more productively elsewhere. And, of course, for all the time I in good faith invested in mentoring and bringing them up to speed on Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines (holy cow, see my article edits and the talk page and my talk interaction with them), not a one of them returned or stayed on as Wikipedia editors, which is pretty much 100% true for all student/courses. YOUR course caused me to stop enjoying and stop editing. While you are running a course and had a total of something like four edits in 2013, and now a few in response to this for 2014. You are clearly not an involved professor.

It would be a great assistance to those of us who have to clean up the damage your students leave if you would a) register a course page, to b) work with the paid staff when your student edits need cleaning up, c) identify which other articles your students have edited, and d) engage the project yourself (that is, follow the edits your students make, make sure they are adding a course template on talk, etc). But you should be working though the Education Program so that volunteer editors aren't forced to track down your students and their work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've worked with NeuroJoe in the past, and had a much better experience than this, so I know from experience that he is here in good faith and I'm sure he is willing to listen to this feedback and take it seriously. NeuroJoe, please do work with the Education Program and create a course page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Trypto, but if he doesn't engage the website, we can't talk to him. (As you know from past discussions, I don't consider it appropriate or individual editor responsibility to have to be emailing profs to get them to review their students' work.) And he hasn't engaged for two years, even though he's running a course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeated reverting without discussing[edit]

The following is copied from the archives

m.o.p has engaged in neutral moderation on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Roscelese has today repeatedly reverted, while keeping a little shy of the 3RR rule, to her own version of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism from texts by User:Bromley86, User:Padresfan94, and me (twice):

  1. at 17:40 on 26 November 2014
  2. at 05:41 on 27 November 2014
  3. at 07:15 on 27 November 2014
  4. at 18:20 on 27 November 2014

She has ignored appeals made to her both in edit summaries and on the article's talk page to discuss rather than edit-war. See in particular:

  1. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Anti-consensus deletion of disliked but sourced information
  2. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Edit-warring without discussion

Please advise. Esoglou (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The page has been fully-protected and I've offered to help clear things up on the talk page. m.o.p 19:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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


  1. Roscelese still will not discuss her claim that the statement, "circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable" means "homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation".
  2. She also ignores the agreement by all participants, except herself, in this discussion and, as soon as the article was unblocked, has inserted her own unsupported text.

As long as Roscelese will not "discuss with the other party" and makes further edits without support from anyone else, the other party has no choice but to undo her undiscussed edits, while continuing to appeal to her to discuss them. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • It's less "Roscelese will not discuss" and more "the discussion has gone stale". Master of Puppets, would you like to give this another try? One of the content disputes seems to have been adequately resolved through mediation, at least. Ivanvector (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm still here, though I can't do much about a stale discussion except remind the parties that edit warring is not going to get us anywhere. For what it's worth, the page has been protected again. m.o.p 20:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you not get the parties to discuss? The discussion has got "stale" only in the sense that Roscelese refuses to take part. You surely have noticed my appeals to her to discuss. I have now made yet another appeal. But Roscelese says: "I have no interest in what Esoglou has to say", and on the grounds of her lack of interest refuses to discuss. You may remember that I pointed out (in the last part of that long edit) that this is the basic difficulty; and that User:Elizium23 then commented: "Esoglou has hit on the crux of this matter." Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
To put it another way, is it acceptable to edit Wikipedia insistently while refusing to discuss the difficulties raised against the edits? Esoglou (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass moves[edit]

user blocked for disruptive page moves. Blackmane (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Taimurijaz97 has been involved in mass moves to unconventional, bad titles. He has been warned several times but he did not pay heed. The user has created a menace for other editors, who are busy chasing him to revert his edits. He was given final warnings but he did violate the policy.1 2.  SAMI  talk 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Holy moly. User now blocked indefinitely (not infinitely) since they a. have a talk page full of warnings; b. move and move and move; c. refuse to engage in discussion. I made it a NOTHERE block; it could have been a "disruptive editing" block (they've been blocked for that before by an editor using the pseudonym "JamesBWatson"). They should not be unblocked until they start to talk. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I fixed some of this, but the moves/redirects would benefit from further checking by other editors. jni (delete)...just not interested 21:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies: Yes, Holy *#$% indeed! Most (14!) of those warnings/messages were from me. 'TJ97' also had a habit of removing maintenance templates and the References hdg/template from 'their' pages that I had added them to, without correcting the problem/s of course! I also spent a great deal of time 'chasing' them fixing/reverting their edits. I am, of course, mortified that they have been blocked!Face-wink.svg They also copied the content of the Lahore Garrison University page and pasted it into at least 9 other 'new' pages, changed the name, but not much little else. Hence many details were the same for those pages! I suspect TJ97 may have made earlier edits to that page as an IP here.
Shame I didn't get here earlier to comment, but I've been busy chasing another editor with a "failure to communicate" anyway! (Only 13 talkpage messages, but they have actually, finally, replied on my talkpage!) Face-surprise.svg --220 of Borg 01:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You'll be pleased to know that the phrase came up during today's SEC Championship game, Luke. Roll tide, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Groundless accusation against WMF employee[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Complaint withdrawn as too funny Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Using the NSA wayback machine, Mion groundless accused a WMF employee of having an undisclosed relationship with the NSA. I removed the name from the discussion. I don't know if any action is required, but I'm bringing this here in case it is. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I dunno. Aside from being absurd and inappropriate, it's little different from the vitriol and abuse aimed at the WMF we routinely let fly from established editors under the aegis of bitching about some new feature or another. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, we should stop doing that, too. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • naturally. And as aware as I am of WP:OSE, I don't feel too impelled to bring the hammer down on someone who has made comments that we've let slide from others. At least this was so cartoonishly silly that someone could conceivably laugh about it. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Gutter69[edit]

No admins like hanging out at UAA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please see contribs for subtle vandalism, and editing other editors' talk posts, followed by this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Vau-block applied. It is my sworn, bureaucratic duty to tell you that you should, ahem, you know, report this to AIV, and in this case you could have reported to UAA as well (I'm surprised the bot didn't catch this--it reports everything else). Really, SandyGeorgia! Quit hogging the board! But this is much faster, of course. Thanks, and many happy 3s and 4s, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

[ec] Blocked by Drmies. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. I'm not up on UAA, and it wasn't clear at first if it was a case for AIV, or just ... something neurological. Thanks anyway! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
UAA is very boring, unfortunately, and not good for my RSI. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Long-term disruptive user Cydevil38[edit]

Cydevil38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term disruptive user whose main activity is nationalist POV-pushing and edit-warring. He has been brought to ANI and other forums at least six times by five different editors before, an astonishing record for someone with only about 1000 article edits, but somehow has always managed to evade sanction because of admin inaction:

In addition, there are many other incidents not reported to ANI, including:

Most recently, Cold Season filed a complaint on the 3RR noticeboard after Cydevil38 repeatedly deleted content from Gojoseon, claiming it was "North Korean fringe view" even though it was sourced to a book by a well-known University of London professor. His disruptive behaviour was verified by myself, as well as the uninvolved user Legacypac [32]. (I also posted much of the above evidence to Cold Season's 3RR complaint and requested a topic ban, but was told 3RR was the wrong venue.)

Despite the overwhelming evidence and confirmation from multiple users, Cold Season's complaint, like many others before his, was not acted upon by administrators and became archived on December 3. Unsurprisingly, Cydevil38 almost immediately resumed his edit warring [33] [34] [35], and using an obvious IP sock 121.161.79.35 [36], after Cold Season warned him of 3RR again. The IP is closely related to 121.161.79.120 used earlier to revert RGloucester [37] on Mid-Autumn Festival.

At the end of Benlisquare's ANI complaint two years ago, another user presciently remarked: "if this ANI thread dies without any activity - he'll continue his disruptive behavior of nationalist edit-warring, blanking, and defacement of articles." And that is exactly what is happening. Cydevil38's disruptive behaviour has gone on for way too long, and I request, yet again, that this user be topic-banned from Korea-related topics. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I concur that as an uninvolved editor I looked at the situation when I saw the most recent 3RR complaint and found that Cydevil38's behavior was edit warring and completely unjustified by the presented sources. I have no idea what his point is continually reverting 2000 year old history. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. That was the first time that I've substantially came in contact with said user but I've seen it before, I found that the user was very Korea-centric/nationalistic in his or her views and it reflects the user's editorial behavioral to such an extend that is disruptive and impossible to work with. The user is certainly stretching what's acceptable behavior: The user will seek every unjustifiable mechanism to impose said user's own will, including edit war until reported to switch over to some other method and blatantly use ducks [38] (unilateral edits and suddenly an IP pops up doing the same edit, right after a second 3RR warning, and a very close timestamp to Cydevil38 [39]) to further his views at the Gojoseon article. The user was also canvassing at Wikiproject Korea (See: Talk:Gojoseon#RFC on founding legends), while the user should know by now that this is unacceptable (especially considering the user was taken to ANI over it in the past... as shown above), which is an indication of the unchangeable nature of this unacceptable behavior. The user Cydevil38 is a disruptive presence to editors that dare touch Korea-related articles that does not meet his or her own views, even ignoring secondary sources or consensus. --Cold Season (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:MatteoNL97 is rewriting various firearm list and redefining terms to match his point of view[edit]

User:MatteoNL97 is rewriting various firearm lists and redefining terms to match his point of view.[40] While he requests help to fix any errors he has made, in reality he reverts any edit that contradicts his POV. I request that other editors please look in to this matter. Thank you--RAF910 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if it's our good ol' friend User:Ctway...after I finish my sandwich. ansh666 05:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive pushing of original research by GLPeterson[edit]

GLPeterson (talk · contribs), probably also User:GaryPeterson, apparently the owner of the Tesla orientated websites 21st Century Books and teslaradio.com keeps adding, and reverting back in, article sections or creating entire articles that MIRROR versions of his own writing and his collection of primary source writings of Nikola Tesla. He seems to edit from the POV that Tesla's more far fetched ideas of wireless power transmission should be stated as valid or can be proven to be valid (example). As he states at "TESLA'S WIRELESS WORK" Gary Peterson, 2004 he wants to show "that the energy from a Tesla coil transmitter energy source can be received by a Tesla receiving transformer" and seems to heavily quote himself as a source (you can see his wording "The body of the earth is an electrical conductor" [41] from his self published "TESLA'S WIRELESS WORK" Gary Peterson, 2004. He has been copying/pasting his material into Wikipedia for some timediff and keeps creating articles and shunting this mixture of his own primary sourced writings and Tesla quotes around Wikipedia, trying to find a home for it, re: at Wireless energy transfer, Wireless energy transmission, World Wireless System, Wireless power, under a redirect pagediff (until another editor deleted itdiff), at Wardenclyffe Towerdiff - moved it off to talk by me as original researchdiff - respawned by GLPeterson at World Wireless Systemdiff

In over a decade of editing GLPeterson has hardly ever responded directly to other editors inquirers about his edits. I noticed one editor try to quiz GLPeterson on exactly what his goals were, got little in the way of feedbackdiff or simply bizarre responsesdiff. The editor ended up moving the material off to a GLPeterson project pagediff. Responses to other editors lately on his talk page have consisted of posting back Neil Armstrong quotesdiffdiff. When pushed at Wireless power he simply re-posted his "findings" in talkdiff or tried to (prove how his analysis of primary sources are valid?)diff. Attempts by several editors to cleanup Wireless power have been wholesale reverted by GLPeterson, without comment or characterized as "DAMAGE CONTROL"diffdiffdiffdiffdiff "DAMAGE CONTROL" (with some odd concept of "vetting")diffdiff. The editor is now continually removing cleanup tags at World Wireless System with no comment[42][43][44][45][46][47].

I see GLPeterson seems to be aware of the wiki sister projects where public domain primary sources and original research can be posted but seems to want to PUSH things on Wikipedia. I don't know if it is a lack the social skills or competence (the editor has been on Wikipedia a long time) or simply WP:GAMING. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, although I have only had personal experience with GLPeterson on the World Wireless System and Wireless power article. The Electrical conduction section of the latter article, which he wrote, seems to be a WP:SYNTH of 110 year old ideas of Nikola Tesla with his own interpretations thrown in. Although it is sourced, virtually all are WP:PRIMARY Tesla works, not modern engineering WP:RSs. The few modern citations Wei, Liu, Mahomed, Leyh do not support the text for which they are cited. The consensus of modern reliable sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 seems to be that Tesla's ideas were wrong. When I tried to rewrite it, he repeatedly reverted [48], [49], [50] several times saying REPAIRED DAMAGE BY Chetvorno". Although invited, he didn't participate in the discussion on the Talk page except in one instance to repeat the irrelevant quotes he had already added. When I tried to discuss it with him on his personal page, he declined. World Wireless System, virtually the entire article written by him, has similar problems. When I put tags on this article he repeatedly reverted them [51], [52] again without answering complaints on the Talk page.
Although he is polite, does not edit war, and knows how to stay below the radar, he seems to be a WP:Single-purpose account whose agenda is to tenaciously push his own WP:FRINGE views about Nikola Tesla's wireless power transmission on a number of articles. I don't know whether his motive is to promote his own Tesla website or not, but his large use of WP:OWNSITE citations would appear to be a WP:COI. --ChetvornoTALK 17:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Although I'm not an administrator, I've urged him to make a statement here to address the concerns. I've also left him a warning that continued disruption will be met with blocks. Blackmane (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Resumed disruptive editing and socking across multiple pages[edit]

Users blocked by Favonian and Ymblanter. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Reported last week.[53] 99.247.57.5 has again started to revert to his preferred version.[54]-[55]-[56] He should have requested unblock on his main account, User:HistoryPK14, which is still blocked. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not a checkuser, and can not convincingly identify the IP and the blocked user, but the behaviour and the block log of the IP was sufficient for me to block them for 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried to get the IP to discuss the changes they wanted to make and wait for their unblock (it maybe so that the IP has considered their block as "expired" since their block didn't match that of the username and the IP was their original editing identification; suggest matching user and IP block to same interval). On a side note, I had notified WT:PAK of this major split of article when all this started and a content discussion is in place. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Ymblanter, don't forget to increase block length of User:HistoryPK14. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I will not do it unless there is a clear proof that this is the same person.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
See [57], User:User:HistoryPK15(not 14) was blocked indefinitely. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Now I see that there was a good reason, but Favonian already reblocked them indefinitely.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Favionian blocked and tagged by 12:00. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Brie & Nikki Bella[edit]

Issue fixed. Blackmane (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

A user recently moved this article from its original (and proper) title, The Bella Twins. I was unable to move this back and another user has since made Brie & Nikki Bella a redirect to The Bella Twins. This does not work because Brie & Nikki Bella has the real article history. I'm not sure if I'm going through the proper channels, so I apologize if I've messed up here. Could an administrator help with this situation?LM2000 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This situation is now fixed.LM2000 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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


WP:Sockpuppet master User:Pass a Method having changed his username across Wikis[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: User talk:Stephen G. Brown#User:Pass a Method. A WP:Permalink for it is here. I also requested outside opinions elsewhere, a fruitless request. I'd rather this discussion continue here at WP:ANI, and I've brought it here because it calls for WP:Administrator involvement. The case concerns a WP:Sockpuppet master, User:Pass a Method, having changed his username across Wikis seemingly to make it less easy to associate his Pass a Method account with having WP:Sockpuppeted. Two WP:Administrators (Bbb23 and John Carter) who are significantly familiar with him agree that he likely is trying to evade scrutiny. Considering that Pass a Method is a very problematic editor, I believe that his English Wikipedia username should remain Pass a Method, and that it should then be indefinitely blocked as a WP:Sockpuppet. However, there is apparently a problem with changing his English Wikipedia username back to Pass a Method because it means that it will be a global move. There must be a way for a WP:Administrator to reverse the name change without affecting the other Wikis. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For purposes of clarification, I am a former administrator, but I agree that to the best of my knowledge the only reasons that this name change could have been requested, given the account has been according to Stephen G. Brown globally inactive since the name change was implemented, either for promotion of personal beliefs of some sort, which is at best dubiously acceptable by policy for an editor who has had apparently no subsequent activity, or as stated above an attempt to try to avoid scrutiny. Given that the account has apparently been globally inactive since the name change, I think that there are reasonable grounds to believe that in this particular case the name change might be reversible. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:187.5.175.206, sockpuppet of User:Gringoladomenega[edit]

Blocked by Drmies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I recently noticed that this IP is the same as Gringoladomenega, who was blocked indefinitely for abusing editing privileges. Their edits are the same, and both add little (or mainly nothing) to the modfied articles.

Thanks, MYS77 22:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Clerical note: MYS77, please remember to notify all users you report to ANI by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk pages. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Racism and bad behavior[edit]

Warnings left by Bishonen and Drmies. User has apologised for their comments. Blackmane (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi, I'm sysop from Spanish Wikipedia. I have a problem with ELreydeEspana because he commited a racist statement in his userpage. He was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia for insulting me and insulted the panamanians with racist words. Please take measures and suppress this defamation. --Taichi (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No racist words here. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bishonen: left a final warning on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Followed up by an extra warning by Drmies and apologies from ELreydeEspana. Going to close. Blackmane (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Canvasser canvassing again[edit]

NAC: Roscelese did not engage in any inappropriate canvassing and there is nothing for anyone to do here. She didn't expect a Spanish Inquisition... Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who has been involved involved in canvasing previously, canvased Bromley86, an editor sympathetic to her POV asking him to participate in a discussion. She asked for no one else's impute and she told him which section of the talk page she wanted him to comment on. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Her invitation is perfectly appropriate and acceptable. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to participate in a discussion, and in fact, it is encouraged. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Canvassing before continuing down this path. Recommend that this report be closed... Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Padresfan94 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no indication of any "votestacking". There is, however, some indication, expressed by myself and others, that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

*shrug* Bromley has disagreed with me on many or most issues on the talkpage, and I think this trumped-up complaint by Padresfan, who is a single-purpose account existing to stalk me and edit-war, says more about Padresfan than it does about me. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm seeing from his edits to the article. Padresfan94 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Tell us about your conspiracy theory, then. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the link Viriditas posted and I am thinking the observations of Black Kite justify watching Padresfan94 closely. Chillum 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I think both Padresfan94 and Roscelese need to be WP:TROUTed. Roscelese, that is fairly close to WP:Votestacking, why choose that editor in particular to notify? That said we can't be confident that it was based on his known opinion on this issue (compared to if Roscelese had notified a lot of editors all on the same side of an issue). And Padresfan94, after reading that thread from Black Kite, you really seem to have something going on between you and Roscelese, I really suggest you stop it. Overall though nothing actionable. --Obsidi (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Obsidi, I asked Bromley for feedback because, by discussing other issues on the talkpage, he was demonstrating a present interest in the article. Had I really wanted someone to support a position, there are dozens of users I could have called on, rather than someone who had disagreed with me on almost everything. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
        • But he doesn't disagree with you on almost everything. There were dozens of people who edited that page. You contacted one, and one who was sympathetic. Padresfan94 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Are they the only editor who demonstrated an interest in the article? (for instance I have seen people sometimes, rarely, notify everyone that had edited the article recently. Then you have a fairly equal way of showing that you are not trying to select any individual based on their opinion.) --Obsidi (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Personal Attacks by User:Viriditas[edit]

No action necessary. Humour is the best medicine - at least that's what was on the back of matchboxes in the UK years ago. It does not apply on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) To the best of my knowledge I have never had any interaction with this user. Unprovoked, he left the following on my talk page: "Is there something in the drinking water in Pennsylvania (besides methane and fracking chemicals)? It's a tossup between your state, Florida and Ohio. Are y'all competing to see who can be the most outrageous, backwards, and 17th century in their approach to civilization? Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)" Padresfan94 (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. However, there is something in your drinking water.[58] I have no idea if this is causing you to edit like this or not. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you please stop attacking me? Padresfan94 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I've stopped. Is there anything else I can do for you? Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I hope you understand how completely unacceptable your comment was. When a dispute becomes heated, I recommend that you step away from your computer before saying something you may regret. —Dark 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Er, it was a joke. And I'm not involved in any dispute. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could remove the comment? It would be a nice gesture of good faith. Not everyone has the same sense of humor. Chillum 04:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Removed by special request.[59] Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas May I gently suggest you fine tune your sense of humor. I think most people would miss the intended amusement in such a post suddenly popping up on their talk page. That said,I see no reason to press this beyond removal of the offending comment with an apology. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been spending far too much time in RL, where most people are actually happy and have a sense of humor. I tend to forget that this place is known for lacking that particular capacity and tends to be very negative, paranoid, and politically naive and immature. The average Wikipedia editor reminds me of Henry Starling, a bipolar megalomaniac.[60] Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Are y'all competing to see who can be the most outrageous, backwards, and 17th century in their approach to civilization?" Is not a joke Padresfan94 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you would call it "libtard humor". Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Viriditas, as long as you include yourself in your definition of the average Wikipedia editor I'm sure that after 10 year presence here you will have appreciated that humour is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia. You are excused the temporary loss of memory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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


The harassment continues[edit]

Indeffed by 5 Albert Square.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Mriduls.sharma was recently blocked for her personal attacks on my user page and talk page for a period of 2 weeks. Following attacks by several IPs (which were being used by the same editor) an ANI report was lodged by 5 albert square, and my user page and talk page were indefinitely semi-protected. However, the 2 week ban on the parent account has now expired, and now they are back with the same personal attacks, here and here. In the latter, they even threaten to hack into my account, something which they have tried to do earlier, as was reported in the previous ANI. To quote them, "You are a bloody asshole and fucking hijra, chootiya and if you block then remember i will hack your account and find you. i will beat you so hard that you will remember." Can something be done to stop this constant harassment? -- KRIMUK90  02:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the user again, this time for a month. I have left a crystal clear message on their talk page leaving them in no doubt about what will happen if they do not edit civilly. However, the threat to hack your account is a worry especially as they did try that before. From what I remember @Krimuk90:, as I didn't want the editor to read this on ANI, I emailed you further suggestions last time. I can't remember, did you do these?
@HJ Mitchell: any further suggestions? Or anyone else? --5 albert square (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how this should result in anything but an indef block. This is a threat clear and simple meant to have a chilling effect. If someone gets their account hacked we block it so this is a significant threat. I think 1 month is too lenient. Chillum 04:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@Chillum: yup I had a think about it afterwards and I genuinely can't see anything else that can be done. I then re-thought my block and decided to make it permanent--5 albert square (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you 5 albert square. Yes, I did follow the instructions from your last e-mail. -- KRIMUK90  04:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Legal Threat by Marcesco[edit]

Editor Marcesco clearly has a COI on the artice Francesco Aquilini, however with this edit [61], the editor made a legal threat. Thanks. VVikingTalkEdits 06:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is truncated, it says "...we now have our lawyers prepared to send you all legitimate up to..."
That could finish "up to date information" which is not a threat. Not a clear cut case in my opinion though the mention of lawyers can have a chilling effect if repeated. Chillum 06:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
To me, an obvious legal threat, but before indef'ing the user, the OP should check and be sure the article has it right, i.e. that whatever Marcesco is griping about is verifiable, not undue weight, and otherwise conforms to BLP policies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have given the user a link to our NLT policy and an only warning regarding the matter. If another admin interprets the truncated edit summary as a clear threat then I do not oppose them acting on that. Chillum 06:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to advise him to post those lengthy edit summaries as talk page comments instead. That way, his intent should become clearer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all, after re-reading the "lawyers prepared to send you all legitimate up to..." it does seem to be she could have been meaning to add "up to date information". Looking over a number of this editors changes, most are correct, however some of them seem to be an issue of what should and shouldn't be included in the article. I have no strong feelings on this article. I just noticed the edit summary in the recent edits area and the "lawyers" talk with the "..." at the end seemed to be a redflag. Thank you for the quick response. VVikingTalkEdits 06:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at all the comments he's made, all of them truncated, I can see where he "might" be just trying to set the record straight. To be watched, though. One of the truncated comments started to say something about defamation, and that's usually at least a yellow flag. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Bugs here. I don't think it's time to pull the trigger on a NLT block. Given this editor seems concerned with BLP issues on that article, the best option is probably to ask him or her to use the talk page and let a more experienced editor address whatever problems are in the article. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a her, based on edit summaries. There's a clear conflict of interest, but, to her defense, she has removed some serious BLP violations ("four dead children" - uncited). This one, while likely not the intention, removed a copyvio from CBC.ca. There's a bit of whitewashing, and a bit of legitimate cleanup in these edits, so let's be nuanced in our approach. I don't see any clear legal threats in the edit summaries, "lawyers" are mentioned in the context of sending "us" documentation to back up assertions. The Interior (Talk) 16:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist followers vandalizing articles[edit]

JamesB17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

JamesB17 has previously been blocked for edit warring at The Zeitgeist Movement, and has previously shown more sympathy toward TZM, if not promotional for TZM. SweetGirlLove likewise.

Both accounts have few edits outside of the topic, and are currently vandalizing Zeitgeist (film series). Indefinite blocks seem fair. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist has blocked JamesB17. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I've left an edit warring notice on SweetGirlLove's talk page. If the disruption continues, a block will follow.  Philg88 talk 10:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I think 'Sweet girl love' is a sock or meat puppet for a determined group that assaults the Zeitgeist related material regularly. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. We assume good faith as far as possible, but letting User:SweetGirlLove off with a 3RR warning after assisting User:JamesB17 to revert war this edit into the Zeitgeist (film series) article, apart from other long-time disruption, seems impossible to me. I've indeffed them as a disruptive sock/meatpuppet, even though they haven't edited after Phil's warning. Hope you don't mind, Phil. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC).
Not that I can confirm it, but different computers on a shared IP address seems possible, doesn't it? Wouldn't JamesB17's block prevent SweetGirlLove from editing in that case? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) No problem, Bishonen. The sock puppet thing looks pretty definite. Good block.  Philg88 talk 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert pedley/ 3 times disruptive editing[edit]

NO ACTION:

I don't see any evidence of disruptive editing here. What I do see is two editors with a desire to improve the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article, who are at the moment working against rather than with each other. Please discuss the best way forward on the article's talk page.  Philg88 talk 18:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

this is the third time this person disrupts my editing below is the first

2014 (UTC) robertpedley/disruptive editing[edit]

apologies were made, the rest is a matter for the articles talk. No admin intervention needed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

this individual has disrupted my editing here[151] and also here[152] and has also done personal attacks by stating "garbage" to an edit stating -"Treatment: Removed - this is unverierified, anecdotal, and NOT currenly proposed for clinical trial in West Africa. Oxxie, please stick to WP guidelines, you know this kind of stuff is garbage"(btw it was referenced)the individual apparently also made fun of my name by placing "oxxie"[153] I am asking for a warning on this person . thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Agree the word "garbage" was unjustified, and prepared to apologize. Regretted using the word the instant I had pressed the "save" button. However I stand by the other comments - the edit in question was unverified, based on anecdotal evidence, and not relevant to the page in question. I subsequently posted as follows on Ozzie10aaaa's talk page - ##Hi Ozzie - I researched this.

    1. a) it's an early stage product which may never come into general use ( http://www.aethlonmedical.com/products/hemopurifier/index.htm )
    2. b) it must be attached to a kidney dialysis machine - not many of those in W Africa !! ( http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/14/aethlon-hemopurifier-ebola/ )
    3. c) the patient was receiving multiple therapies and his viral load was already in decline ( http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/14/aethlon-hemopurifier-ebola/ )
    4. Cheers, Bob. Robertpedley (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

the second is [1] reviewing this diff though you are correct that his stance is not logical. The material in question was the USA answer and precautions to the Epidemic in west Africa. So it is related and belongs in the article. But that is only my opinion. I think they are suggesting you should put it Ebola virus cases in the United States. This isn't unreasonable. You really just to get with them and talk. Take it to the talk page. If that don't work open an RFC or take it to the appropriate noticeboard. There are plenty of ways to get a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

and now [62] I am asking for a warning/block on this individual for disruptive editing thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see what the problem is - the edits affect a number of areas in the article, material probably added by a number of editors, not just Ozzie10aaaa. The reason for every edit is given clearly in the edit summary - generally today, I've been clearing up duplicated or inaccurate material. Some material which is irrelevant for the page in question has been removed with a suggestion to put it on a more relevant page. I've opened a section in the talk page to discuss my edits, in case anyone thinks they have not improved the readability and relevance of the article.Robertpedley (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


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


Atifabbasi8 creation of many titles duplicating other articles[edit]

Atifabbasi8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) A review of this user's talk page and contribution history suggests a lack of understanding how Wikipedia works. They keep starting short articles on topics already covered elsewhere. Can they be blocked from creating articles for a time? Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not possible to block someone from creating articles, other than simply by blocking them from editing altogether. Let me look at the edit history and come back with an opinion on whether a block is needed. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick Griffin and User:John[edit]

User:John has removed content critical of Nick Griffin and protected that article because he believes that said content infringes WP:BLPSOURCES. I disagree with his actions. In an attempt to fix this disagreement I started this conversation on the BLP Noticeboard. Practically everyone in that conversation agrees that there is nothing objectionable about the content John removed, but he does not agree and will not unprotect the article or restore the content. He apparently is "waiting" for more comments. Personally, I believe he is delaying the inevitable.

Since I do not have the ability to restore it myself, I ask that someone who can, does. And I also ask that someone with experience writing controversial BLPs remind John that removing content critical of a such figures is not a good way to achieve any kind of neutrality. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

John, did you really intend to lock the article indefinitely?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course not, just while a consensus is reached about whether it is acceptable to state on a BLP: The Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie said "He emerged as the lying piece of work you always suspected."[1] As the log entry says. --John (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ Lorraine, Veronica (23 October 2009), "Sun panel gives its verdict on BNP leader", The Sun, retrieved 25 October 2009 
  • Comment - Yeah, that's about as inflammatory of an editorial comment as its gets. As long as there is "follow through", this seems like a logical action by John. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi[edit]

User:Winkelvi — who follows me around Wikipedia, has cursed at me, has made repeated harassing posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop, and has made numerous snide comments to me at at BLP Noticeaboard discussion — has now written a long personal attack on me on his user page. [63]. Not mentioning my username is not a defense when numerous editors who have been involved in the discussion can identify that he's referring to me. And in any case, what is the purpose of that screed, other than to personally attack another editor? His comment "continually and obsessively updating their edit count and editor ranking position" — basic housekeeping; why should that bother him? — shows he goes to check out contributions and keeps and eye on where and what I edit!

I'm edited on Wikipedia for 9 1/2 years with a virtually impeccable record and much goodwill. I've mentored many editors and could call on a dozen fellow editors, including a couple of admins, to vouch for my good works. As can happen in 9 1/2 years, I was involved in a dispute in June in which the other user repeatedly cursed me with the f-word [64] after my very polite posts on his talk page [65], [66]. He did so again and again [67], [68], and was verbally abusive even when Wikipedia rules required my notifying him of things like 3RR warnings and ANI [69].

The whole incident left me so frustrated I remained away from Wikipedia until November. Within days of my returning Winkelvi was back on my talk page to bait me. [70] When I responded on his talk page he first bragged about how he told me "fuck off" in June, and then began cursing me again freshly: [71]. And then even after being asked to stay off my talk page, he came at me again, with more false charges [72].

Within an hour of my posting on a noticeboard, he's there [73]. Fine: Even if it's not advisable to comment on a noticeboard to an editor you've antagonized and cursed at, it's not disallowed. But then he follows me around to other editors' pages where I do not mention him [74]. And I'm not even listing all the diffs on the noticeboard where he makes uncivil comments and tells me has every right to curse me out since "Wikipedia is not censored and cursing is allowed," [75], even though that guideline refers to quotes within articles — it's not blanket permission to curse out other editors.

Is he going to be allowed to keep the personal attack on me on his user page? And is there any way to stop this cursing, uncivil editor from following me around, going to my talk page and harassing me? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Just chiming in to note how Winkilevel has treated @Lithistman: I recall an exchange from October where Lihistman removed a non-constructive comment from his page [76] to have Wink slap an automated message on the talk page [77]. This was after he two users had been engaged in a contentious discussion at BLPN.
  • More recently, he engaged in a pretty petty edit war on Breaking Bad (see history) and showed nothing but hostility on the article's talk page (see thread).
  • Given this and evidence above, I think this may be a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. -- Calidum 20:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • With respect to your first bullet, it was an automated but personalized message, and I believe he was referring to the edit summary (trolling). As for your second bullet, you were involved in the edit war and in the discussion (I'm not going to read all of it). From this report and these two "incidents", you conclude that WV is WP:NOTHERE? That's a bit much.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever else is going on (perhaps an IBAN is indicated here?), I disagree on your NOTHERE assessment. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)