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 directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.


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

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

Centralized discussion
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages

Certified pages

Use of administrator privileges

Noticeboard archives


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

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

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

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

Continued disruption[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Just floating an idea here...[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Support as proposer. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I came here to ask on what rationale he changed Minecraft to Oxford spelling, and in what way the structure "in order to" violated the rules of that variety of English. This script needs to go back on the shelf and the editor needs to talk through the issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest just deleting the script. While it may be helpful in some respects, it yields itself far too easily to abuse and rash actions that most of us consider disruptive—such as this case. It is the hammer that is always looking for a nail. If a similar thing happened with AWB, they would have had their usage of that editing tool pulled. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know I could be fighting a lost cause, but I must get this point out - perhaps this is being taken too far? Is there a possibility that we could be getting carried away with the problems of the script? As far as I see it, the script itself doesn't need to be re-evaluated and neither do I. I've already reverted the non-UK articles I've implemented the spelling in, so what is the point of these sanctions? So that I can never do it again? What if I just say that I will never use the script for non-UK and non-Canadian articles? I already have done, so why the sanctions? Will it get us anywhere? I will accept responsibility for what I've done, but I disagree with these threats of escalating blocks. Jaguar 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Syria, China, Egypt, Kenya, Belize, South Sudan, Russia, Television, Computer, and Personal computer are all non-UK articles that you converted but have not reverted back. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    Farix, did you check them? I have reverted all but three back! Belize and Kenya are English speaking countries and they use British Spelling! Jaguar 21:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    What about Personal computer?--v/r - TP 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've just reverted that one back. Jaguar 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Great proposal. Though I do think that he should be allowed use of a US English ENGVAR script to clean up the damage. (I strongly doubt he will go overboard with this one.) Oreo Priest talk 22:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    If you mean under your personal supervision for a day or two, then that would probably be fine, but not on his own. He still hasn't shown an understanding of the policy in general. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    I understand both the policy and all what you have told me. In a nut shell, stick the national spelling to their respective national articles. Jaguar 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    I can supervise him to clean up the damage, sure. I'm concerned that requiring to clean up the damage will lack teeth, and he'll shirk actually reverting any but the ones manually pointed out to him, and even then he'll skip some of those. It's what he's been doing so far. Oreo Priest talk 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is not with the tool, it's that the user doesn't understand the ENGVAR policy. His "In a nut shell" comment just above only confirms that he doesn't understand it. Given that, he should not be encouraged to change the variety of English used in any article, whether manually or with scripts or other tools. --Amble (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Using a script to change the variety of English is basically a bad idea. That should be done manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This seems like a good way to go to encourage the editor to learn ENGVAR by doing manual changes. BMK (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Robert McClenon. The proposed ban is a bit long, but it's only on script-assisted edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI The changes to Television had not been self-reverted by Jaguar as of about two hours ago, when I noticed and reverted them. I then got curious, checked the source of the evidently unjustified and oddly incomplete (it was still "color" in most places) changes, and was very surprised to find that this example of arbitrary and tiresome AE>BE orthographic imperialism was due to an experienced editor. AVarchaeologist (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have no idea why Jaguar is making these changes but he definitely means well. Rather than a ban which seems rather forceful and bureaucratic given that he doesn't have a long history of repeated offenses, I simply suggest that Jaguar just avoids making such changes and we can all move on. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    This is why I didn't propose an ENGVAR ban, just a ban of the tools. If you don't know what you are doing, doing it faster isn't the solution. This ban will allow him to fix ENGVAR issues on any article, Wiki-wide, he just can't do it at the speed of sound. The alternative is to allow to keep using the tools, making lots of errors and end up getting blocked. This is the least aggressive way to deal with the problem. Also note that it is for a fixed time, not indef. He doesn't have to come grovel to get access back, it is automatic. Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Dr Blofeld, you were present the last time Jaguar's mess had to be sorted out. If he had a history of making such monumental messes, I'd have argued for a community site ban. Blackmane (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Mistakes have been made. That's enough for me to advise shutting this user's toy down for the year. Carrite (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    That's not very nice is it... Jaguar 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but I don't like automated content editing. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Use the opportunity to familiarize yourself with ENGVAR, and edit cooperatively. Clean up your inappropriate changes, which becomes more time consuming when others have edited the article after your changes. Do not use a script to implement changes which are likely to be controversial. Edison (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong opposeSupport. Mistakes are not something I am willing to support a ban on the tool for. Losing battle I know...but I feel strongly enough to add my voice in that direction. Dennis said; "I don't think the disruption is intentional, but that doesn't make it any less problematic". Sure...that is true, but if it is unintentional...warning the editor would be the appropriate measure. Anything else is punitive in my opinion. Also...I don't like the community service suggestion of making the editor suit up in an orange jumpsuit to pick up the trash on the side of the road. OK...that was an analogy...but my point is made...I hope. It seems it didn't take long for the editor to prove they weren't being completely honest with us. This seems to suggest this was a purposeful attempt to disrupt after all of the warnings on this thread alone. I would even support a short term block at this point per Dennis Brown.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think your analogy works. It's like making him pick up the trash that he himself littered by the side of the road instead of giving him a ticket for littering. Not one article more than that. As is, he keeps repeating that he has cleaned up all his mistakes despite the fact that it is manifestly untrue. He hasn't even cleaned up many of the mistakes that have been manually pointed out to him by other editors! Surely you must agree that he is responsible for that. Oreo Priest talk 11:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sure, I get that, but on Wikipedia we do not hold mistakes against an editor. Now, if he was warned and ignored the warnings, as long as those were specific, then it was intentional. But the report doesn't say that and I actually trust Dennis to have that right. Like I said, it is a loosing battle but it is how I feel about it.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Surely asking him to clean up behind himself doesn't count as holding anything against him... Oreo Priest talk 17:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Absolutley. In fact I believe we should all be willing to clean up our messes, but we should not have that as part of any required sanctions.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support I was originally on the fence about this, but seeing Jaguar's reply to me I am convinced this ban needs to happen and it should be indefinite. Blackmane (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – The fact that he's continued to use the script during this discussion warrants a good whack with the cluebat as well. Mojoworker (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


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

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

This comment shows that you still don't understand the scope of what you did. You weren't merely "changing a few bytes". You were changing the vary language that was being used on the articles. The reason for it? You didn't—and have yet to—give one and you were doing it on a massive scale. WP:ENGVAR is very clear that you don't make such changes unless (a) you get a consensus or (b) the article clearly has strong ties to the UK. Even when you claimed to have reverted all of your mistakes, editors had to repeatedly point out more articles to you. You only reverted an article when an editor specifically pointed it out to you that you should not have changed it. —Farix (t | c) 10:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Quite apart from the issue that you have been ignoring the essence of WP:ENGVAR, which is do not change the variety of English without good reason, you allowed the script to change a person's name in World War I. You were not responsibly monitoring the changes it made. I'm sorry for the emphasis, but you have been told this, and it matters. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
ENGVAR is a delicate and sensitive consensus. By rolling into town with automation, you are essentially cutting cookies on the front lawn with an ATV. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, no one should be running a script to convert a large number of articles from American to British English or vice versa, hence why I think said script should be deleted outright. However, if it is not going to be deleted, it needs to be recoded to use some sort of white-list (for both users and articles) along with a popup telling the editor using the script that they are responsible for its use and that they should that there is a per-established consensus for such a conversion. —Farix (t | c) 19:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The script itself is OK, it's just that there are certain things in it that could be improved. For example "in order to" should not be deleted as this has always been used in UK spelling, and in some cases the script did not change "color" into "colour". With the script's creator's permission, I could have adjusted the script myself and optimised it. The script is widely used by other editors, I saw that I was not the only one who used it. Deleting it isn't the right thing to do. Jaguar 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Jaguar's cavalier and dismissive attitude is shown by "We are going too overboard with these idle threats of blocks and sanctions!" Please believe that you are not reading "Idle threats." I would certainly block a disruptive editor who refused to follow ENGVAR. Far too much time has been wasted in years gone by in pointless arguments over which version of English is "correct." Color vs colour, Push up vs Press up, and countless more. We do not want to revisit every such long-drawn out and pointless argument. Edison (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no correct version of English, it is essentially the same language however I have corrected my mistakes and familiarised myself with ENGVAR, thus I have stopped using the script for non UK and Canadian related articles since this ANI discussion has come to light. Jaguar 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep on repeating this tired old lie. You have not corrected all of your mistakes, not even close. You have corrected only ones that have been manually pointed out to you, and even then you have skipped fixing many of those. You need to make a good faith effort to fix all of your mistakes, without skipping ones that seem fine to you, and you need to not make it another editor's problem to clean up behind you. You have so far shown remarkable audacity in insisting you've cleaned everything up, when there are still dozens of articles left unaddressed. Oreo Priest talk 08:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Jaguar, you're treading very close to the line, if you haven't crossed it already, of disruption similar to when you created hundreds of articles on Chinese towns and cities citing the same source without checking that you were referencing the correct page of the source because you didn't understand the language. As then, you are now arguing that what you did was "not a big deal". Unfortunately, what you did turned out to be a big deal and resulted in all of those articles needing to be nuked because of the sheer number of wrong references. I forget the exact number, someone might remember, but it was well over 1000 stubs. The trouble is that your percentage of errors is high enough that it would warrant checking of all of the associated edits and because it is interspersed with enough good contributions that it rises to the level of disruption. This is not about bringing up old soup but to show that you have prior history of causing this sort of disruption and then trying to defend it. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
My last ANI discussion was two years ago and by that time much has changed. This script I've been using, the fact that I have made at least a dozen mistakes compared to creating nearly 10,000 stubs are not noticeable in this case. My intentions are always good, and in this case I have reverted my mistakes and stuck to UK and Canadian related articles. I don't know what else to say without repeating myself. Everyone makes mistakes, and I know that 10,000 stubs sounds like a large number but it is nothing compared to my good contributions and all the notable things I've done for this encyclopaedia. Jaguar 18:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if you do say so yourself. EEng (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what that's supposed to mean? Jaguar 08:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It means that since it's the community's judgment of your contributions -- not your judgment of them -- that matters, it's not only irrelevant for you to offer such an opinion, but immodest as well. If you want to raise the question tastefully, you might say something like "I like to think my mistakes are outweighed by my good contributions..." and then wait to see how others respond.

Your own userpage offers (apparently proudly):

There is nobody on Wikipedia, and not even a bot, that created 10,000 articles and having 8,250+ of them deleted... thinking about it still angers me, but I tend to cheer myself up a little bit by thinking "Oh my god, I've made history!"
This is the kind of thing people like Anthony Weiner think after making utter fools of themselves. Also on your userpage you quote yourself thus:
Even if you have knowledge, you have to have wisdom as well.
Try thinking about that.

Finally, you need to learn what the term notable means in the context of Wikipedia -- your contributions are certainly not WP:NOTABLE, unless it turns out you're really Prince Harry or something, and even then there would be some additional hurdles to get past. EEng (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I am sorry if you show anger towards me but I think that's needlessly personal. Comparing me to Anthony Weiner and taking quotes out of my user page for mockery is out of the question. You have to make the most out of grim situations, so is having any shred of dignity "being a fool" in your books? Jaguar 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow. You have an explanation for everything. To "make the most" of your past, and regain your dignity, the best way would be to admit your mistakes and show that you've learned from them, not brush them off. EEng (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
See, there's the rub. You used the same argument as last time. You try to convince us that we can just dismiss your error rate against the weight of your good contributions. You do make a lot of good contributions, that's not in doubt, but the point has always been that the volume of your contributions means that even a small error percentage results in a large number of edits that need to be checked. Consider an error rate of 10%, if an editor had that over, say, 20 edits so 2 errors. in the grand scheme of things that would be unnoticeable and not much effort to find and fix. Most editors would just drop a note on the editor's TP and move on. One could easily open up 20 tabs on a browser and fix it with not too much time spent. Blow that up to 200 edits, so 20 errors. Now the effort expended would be pretty considerable, especially when the edits are interspersed at random through the 200. Now, go up to 2000 edits i.e. 200 errors... You see where I'm going with this? The effort to fix a small error rate magnifies very rapidly when dealing with a large volume of edits. Even considering a smaller rate of errors, lets say your dozen errors are interspersed over 1000 edits. Because of your prior history, do you really expect editors to have to sift through a thousand edits to correct your errors?
The one thing that is doing my nut in is how you keep trying to convince us to dismiss your error rate against your contributions. "I know that 10,000 stubs sounds like a large number but it is nothing compared to my good contributions" This one sentence makes me want to pick up my keyboard and throw it through a window. Do you have any idea of the amount of time that was spent in that last case? As I'm pretty good at reading simplified Chinese, I decided to check through 20 and found all of them to have wrong references. I decided to correct 5 of them to get a gauge of the effort required. Each of those stubs required a minimum 40mins to 1. find the correct page to reference, 2. correct the reference in the stub, 3. read through, 4. translate into English, 5. edit to avoid violating copyright, 6. double check for errors. That's 200min, over three hours spent fixing your mess and that was only 5 stubs. You seem to have zero understanding and appreciation of the efforts spent. Blackmane (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
And as before, he seems fully intent on making other editors clean up behind him. Oreo Priest talk 16:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen someone this clueless. An ANI open about their incorrect use of a script and what does he do? Continue using the script while the discussion is still open. That's basically flipping a birdy at everyone who has posted here, isn't it. I'm almost tempted to propose a block for the duration of this discussion. Blackmane (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Careful. There's very stiff competition along those lines. EEng (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

  • This has been open 5 days now, and is probably ripe for closure. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree; the way I see things is that I will either be revoked from using the script, be blocked, or left alone. The choice isn't mine to make, but if it were I would leave things be as I have and will not edit any more non UK and Canadian articles using the script. With the script creator's permission I can edit the script for myself to optimise it (I've looked through the source, it isn't difficult). There was little damage done and it was quick to be fixed, I'm glad things didn't get worse for all of us. Jaguar 18:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, you keep saying it was fixed, while others are saying it is not. Part of this proposal says you MUST fix all of them. Keep that in mind. If you were wise, you would have already fixed them all, perhaps saving a vote or two. If you are smart, you would fix them now without the waffling. It wouldn't bother me if the closer asked Oreo Priest to supervise that portion of the sanction by making a list that others can check. Dennis Brown |  | WER 17:37, 24 July 2014 (


I have made a table down below showing all of my ENGVAR contributions in total. This shows what are non-UK or non-Canadian (I've put this as "non-UK" to clear confusion), UK related and ambiguous. Of all the non-UK ones you will see which ones I have reverted and for the acceptable ones which ones are remaining the same. I think we're all getting tired of this; people keep saying that I have not reverted all of my mistakes. Well these below show nearly all the ones of which have been corrected. I have looked through my contributions about five times today, every non-UK article has been reverted - it's true! Jaguar 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

UK related Non-UK (reverted) Ambiguous (not reverted)
Jaguar F-Type Suriname Television
Kenya Sudan ‎ Suez Canal
Olympic-class ocean liner Spain English language
Papa New Guiana Russia World War I
RMS Titanic North Korea
Montserrat South Korea
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Japan
Anguilla Poland
Saint Kitts and Nevis Ukraine
Northamptonshire Brazil
Bahamas Belgium
Grenada Computer
Guyana ‎ Personal computer
British Raj Iraq
George Town, Cayman Islands Syria
Bermuda Iran
Castries Israel
Saint Lucia Italy
Cayman Islands Argentina
Sierra Leone Suez Crisis

I keep on hearing things like "fix your mess" and "clean up your mistakes" for the past two years. So let's take a real look at what this script does, shall we? This is a revision difference for the Cayman Islands which is one of many I have used with the script. Click on the link and you will find that the script has changed a monstrous and devastating 27 bytes worth of data! It changed the words "specialized, in order to, cooperate" and a hyphen. The script has successfully changed US English to UK English according to ENGVAR. So let's delete the script, block Jaguar and keep on at him because the mistakes (which have been reverted) are unacceptable. Everyone makes mistakes, we're only human. I've read through ENGVAR, I understand fully now, I have kept well clear from non-UK articles and will delete the script for my personal use if need be. Jaguar 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You just NOW reverted Computer from your change. Add that to all the other articles where you didn't revert until after those articles were explicitly pointed out to you. On top of that, you are still justifying converting the "ambiguous" articles from American to British. If it is ambiguous to begin with, then you shouldn't be convert from one variation of English to another. You have repeatedly demonstrated a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from when the problems were first pointed out to you to now. In fact, you still keep claiming there was no problem to begin with despite every other editor that has commented on the issue stating the exact opposite. This shows that you have absolutely no business using a tool like a script to do mass changes of this type because who you've shown a complete lack of competency to both recognize and correct your mistakes. —Farix (t | c) 19:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. If these edits are so trivial—as you've repeatedly claimed—that you don't understand why everyone is making a big deal about them, why are you even changing from American English to British English in the first place? —Farix (t | c) 20:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Farix has phrased it quite well, especially as regards WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Oreo Priest talk 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my original comment that changing the ENGVAR tag in any article should be done manually, to give the editor a chance to consider the implications for that particular article, and should not be changed by a script for multiple articles. I thank Jaguar for reverting the improper changes, but the fact that he had to be nagged to revert the changes indicates that he shouldn't use a script to do them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Jaguar has not fixed the Spain article as he alleges above. His only two recent edits there were his original 'engvar' edit and then a revert of another editor to his own preferred version with an incorrect edit summary.
He has still not undone his changes to the China or Egypt articles, in spite of them being brought up specifically in a list by Farix above and his prior claims to have fixed the items on that prior list.
Where he has actually reverted his changes, he has done so without even making a token attempt at preserving others' edits that were made subsequent to his changes, see the WP:POINTy edit summary, "Restoring American spelling and broken refs. " where he reverted both his changes and subsequent fixes to other parts of the article.
His pledge to "not edit any more non UK and Canadian articles using the script." was broken 14 minutes later with this edit to an article about a sovereign country.--Noren (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. I should have known better than to believe Jaguar when he said he'd fixed the articles that he claimed. Now my comment below seems naively optimistic. Oreo Priest talk 21:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy. We editors can only assume so much good faith, however, that "non-revert" on Spain is pushing that assumption extremely hard. —Farix (t | c) 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't stand this any more. People are too quick to judge and too quick to criticise as everyone here demonstrates. I've just looked through Spain and found that I have accidentally reverted my ENGVAR edit back to my own revision. Honest to god it was a complete accident, I was meant to revert it to the revision before mine (which I have done to all the rest) so why would anyone think I would need to keep Spain in British English? How does that make sense? Now it's the domino effect - someone accuses me of being dishonest for lying when it was a accident on which I did not know! Someone could have kindly pointed out to me that I made a mistake on Spain, but instead I have to be labelled as a dishonest liar, even going as far to convince Mark Miller who had the right idea of opposing the proposal, but thanks to the manipulation people have provided them in this ANI discussion everyone has turned against me, even when I'm trying to do the right thing. "It seems it didn't take long for the editor to prove they weren't being completely honest with us. This seems to suggest this was a purposeful attempt to disrupt" - just look at what people here have made someone think when it's NOT TRUE.
This has gone on far enough, it's making me feel mentally deprived! This sort of thing doesn't help my insomnia and severe depression. This ANI discussion has turned from being a discussion about a few mistakes concerning a script to a personal witch hunt against me. Everyone has themselves to blame to falsely accusing me of being (quote) "dishonest, liar, Anthony Weiner, Prince Harry, fool, tiresome, clueless and my favourite, imperialist". Just look at what you've all done at me. Block me then, delete the script because if this has to go on any longer I'm going to have a mental breakdown. Mock me, take out some quotes out of this paragraph. Go right ahead. Jaguar 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTTHERAPYCombatWombat42 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Jaguar, it isn't about you, it's about your behaviour: a limited part of it, at that. It isn't even about your intent, it's about your use of the script. You continued to use it. You never even mentioned World War I above - I must be going blind, I didn't see you listed World War I the kind of article that indicates why ENGVAR is a prickly issue, I might add - despite my having where I have twice mentioned here that you let the script change someone's name. So here's the third mention. You need to stop using the script. That's it. You could have simply voluntarily stopped using it, and shown us that you realised you had inadvertently been careless. You didn't, so you need to be told to stop using it. That's all this is. Stop using the script. Make the changes manually if you feel so ineluctably called to work in this contentious area. The milk's spilt now - several editors have been over your edits, checking them. At Spain and Russia, editors have found your fixes undid others' work - but that work has now been put back. As others said earlier, the faster the script changes were reverted, the lower the likelihood of its being complicated - but we're past that point now, so what's left is for you to stop using the script, plain and simple, and then the reason for this review of your edits will be removed and so, presumably, will this section. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Jaguar, we have given you ample rope and assumed tons of good faith, but over time you've showed us that you are not acting in good faith. Calling you dishonest because you've been behaving dishonestly is completely legitimate. You continually insisted that you've addressed everything, while you have left many things unaddressed. Every time I've pointed this out, you have made no attempt to address the concern or solve the problem. At time of writing, you still haven't addressed the articles I pointed out below.
You have shown remarkable resistance to understanding the essentials of WP:ENGVAR. It's not a byte count, it's not 'I think it seems right', it's not 'I've changed it now so there's no point changing it back'. It's keeping an article at its original variant, and changes occur only when there are both strong national ties and a consensus.
You have many times complained that we're out to get you, and thrown up your hands as if it's some foregone conclusion. This despite the fact that we outlined very specific courses of action to remedy the situation, which you chose to ignore or partially ignore. I don't see why you writhe, squirm, complain and dissimulate when you could simply have taken the time you spent complaining to actually fix the mistakes you made. Take some ownership for your actions instead of playing the victim. Oreo Priest talk 20:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jaguar:, you have no one to blame but yourself. Editors have asked you repeatedly to undo your actions because they where disruptive, yet you stubbornly refused to do so. Getting you to revert any one article is/was like pulling teeth. An editor is responsible for their own edits, no one else. But to this date, you refuse to take responsibility for your edits. It is that stubbornness and refusal to fix your mistakes even after they were pointed out to you repeatedly that caused editors like Mark Miller to change their minds about you.
And let me end with this final note on a much broader scale. There is no script to convert British English to American. The reason for that is not because no one thought of creating such a script, but because such a script is considered a bad idea that will encourage disruptive editing. So we don't need a script to convert American English to British? —Farix (t | c) 10:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously what matters is the content, not the byte count. Nobody's suggesting you be blocked either, just that you not be allowed use of a script you've proven you can't (or at least didn't) use responsibly. Any "keeping at" you would be because you still haven't finished, nor have you understood why what you did causes a problem as evidenced by the 'byte count' comment.
I appreciate the list. I still don't see why you insist that you've made a complete list when you clearly haven't. Here are some of the more glaring omissions:
  1. Jumping Flash!
  2. Minecraft
  3. YouTube
  4. China
  5. Norway
  6. Antigua and Barbuda
  7. The Bahamas
Also, you really need to understand that sovereign countries, or parts of them, that were once British don't automatically have British English. Please revert those, and obtain a consensus before changing them back. Likewise for the cases you've labelled 'ambiguous'. If you could do that, as well as address the list I've made, then that would basically be the problem solved. Provided, that is, that you don't make unilateral changes in the future and don't use the script. Oreo Priest talk 19:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Jaguar, the community's patience is wearing thin. You have been obtuse and in some things your actions have looked downright dishonest. You are bordering on needing a block instead of a topic ban. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously conflicted edits to A2 milk[edit]

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

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

That edit did a number of things -

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  • By far your most level-headed, reasonable and collegial contribution to the entire issue to date, especially when read together with your equally tempered post-break comment on the article talk page. Genuine regret, agreement that your original edits were promotional and a willingness to consider the best way to contribute moving forward. Significant concessions. How you contribute is still up to you (I've made my thoughts clear) but the fact that you're now willing to consider an alternate to processes employed thus far is a big step forward. Your break (intentionally of otherwise) stopped the edit-warring and the above strongly suggests you don't intend to jump back in and start that up again. If you can commit to waiting until a genuine consensus has developed on the talk page, I think we can work collaboratively on a proposal for a scientific history section and Chinese section. Stlwart111 12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a reasonable response, if and there's a big if in that one...If Black Cab will agree to a 1rr restriction or at least a very strong commitment to stray from contentious issues a full on topic ban may not be needed. I think we all have flaws as editors and as long as we address those sanctions are to avoid disruption and not punish. I think they still have enough bonafides to address this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As indicated above, I will approach this only through the talk page. I have already done so using the {{Request edit}} template with success. I think we can move along more harmoniously now. BlackCab (TALK) 02:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to close[edit]

Given the above and what's now happening on the talk page, I think this can safely be closed and archived. Stlwart111 04:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban on Septate[edit]

Septate is subject to the following restrictions indefinitely for all edits which are related to religion:

1) 1 revert per 48 hours per article (see WP:1RR for more information).

2) Before he makes any content revert (including vandalism), he is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am inviting Toddy1, User:NeilN, User:Iryna Harpy and the administrator who is monitoring this to see my contributions anf tell me whether 90% of my edits are lies or POV. That translates to 1500 edits. You are clearly exceeding wikipedia's civility guidelines.Septate (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I also want to question regarding your claim that I always make unsourced edits on religion related articles. Please see Religion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Religion in Burkina Faso, Religion in the Republic of the Congo, Religion in Sierra Leone etc and tell me if they are unsourced. I infact organized those articles by adding graphs. At least 15 users have thanked me for my edits and it would have been impossible if I was a blatant lier!Septate (talk) 06
45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with Toddy1 that you are any good editor, you have never made a edit which would include at least 100 words because all you can do is flip and switch the words in religion articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Septate certainly has been a problem in the past. I had experience of him two or three months ago when he was slow edit-warring to remove images of Muhammad. The noticeable feature of the way he was doing it was by using deceptive edit summaries to cover up the removal (and adding minor edits after the removal). See my additional comments in my report here at AN3 for which he got a 48 hour block in April. I thought that he would get the message with this, but he was doing it again here in June when he tried to remove the same image with a deceptive edit summary. I haven't seen much of him since then. Toddy1 says he's improved recently (maybe he would take on the job of mentoring Septate!) although scanning Septate's talk page, including deleted notices it, doesn't fill me with confidence that that is the case. NeilN says that a topic ban is too severe and 1RR should be tried. Perhaps. Unless Toddy1 is right, Septate seemed to me to be on the inevitable road of being indeffed. DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for comment DeCausa. I admit that I was badly wrong when it comes to article Muhammad and that's why I was blocked. I admitted my mistake. You can't use those edits as a reason for accusation.Septate (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I would not endorse a topic ban on Septate. As a newbie, he did start out as being 'overenthusiastic' and was not doing a good job on balancing POV, civility, etc. He has, however, always been prepared to discuss any indiscretions and has become receptive in taking criticisms on board. Had I considered that he was simply a disruptive POV pusher with no subject knowledge, I would have opened an ANI some time ago. The learning curve can be a difficult one for those who are particularly passionate about a subject, but that most certainly doesn't mean that he is irredeemable, and he has certainly been asking for assistance and opinions from other editors.
If he does slip backward into bad editing practices, it will become evident soon enough. A topic ban would be both premature and unnecessarily punitive.
Apologies to all for not providing diffs, but I've only just received this notification and am about to log out for the day. Should supporting diffs be needed to demonstrate Septate's willingness to work collaboratively, I'll be happy to provide them ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, also please explain, what you mean while saying that my talk page discussions are Gossips. Raising a question on talk page about some content that you feel is unnecessary does not make them gossips!Septate (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Gossip and another definition is Wikipedia:Soapboxing. Although many of your edits were worse. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

When it comes to [83] 24 June 2014;

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

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

Septate: alternative proposal[edit]

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

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

  • Support Toddy1's proposal. I'm counting 7 editors posting here. 5 have supported some sort of restriction (me, Toddy1, JimRenge, Bladesmulti, NeilN); one @Iryna Harpy: opposes a topic ban but doesn't say whether she supports any other restriction; the 7th editor posting being Septate himself. Toddy1's proposal seems a reasonable next step to see if Septate will become a net benefit to WP or go the other way. I would also like to see if Toddy1 and Septate would agree to formal mentoring from Toddy1.DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this proposal. I only wanted to get a quick word in on not supporting a topic ban before logging off yesterday. I'd actually like to encourage Septate to try to do some editing in non-religious subject areas of Wikipedia in order to develop a better sense of interacting with other editors/contributors without his (Septate is a he) emotional baggage triggering his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Restrictions are a useful tool, but learning to edit in an environment where he doesn't feel that he is constantly on the defensive or offensive might be a positive experience. If nothing else, it would give him a chance to develop his understanding of policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks Toddy1 for your proposal. I am totally in favour of this proposal. But how it will work? Please elaborate it. Please read my user page. I am male, so stop wasting time by writing He/She. Thanks. Septate (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Septate, suppose you make a change and someone reverts you. Before you can change the content back (waiting 48 hours) you need to open a conversation on the article's take page to explain why your edit is better and wait six hours to see if there's any response. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support JimRenge (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Persistent violation will result in a permanent suspension from religion articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that all who have previously posted here (including Septate himself) seem to support this proposal what is the next step procedurally? Does it need an zdmin to close this? @Toddy1: you based this on a previous experience. What happens next? DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

For Septate to be subject to this or any other sanction, an admin needs to make a decision. I explained what the sanction meant on Septate's talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This is still waiting for an admin to close it.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death threat? from[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block needed[edit]

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

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

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

Now as, on User talk:Zero0000. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
And under an attack-username I will not cite here. Obvious on the page history of abovementioned talkpage, however. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Account-name created at 1.36 User talk:Malik Shabazz under attck. Huldra (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Huldra (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is part of what is filed at WP:SPI for a quick check. I already did a /17 rangeblock, but it needs more and I'm off to bed and have a busy day tomorrow. It needs someone who knows how to block ranges to do anon blocks on a dozen or so ranges, which means doing homework, and I just don't have the time for at least 16 hours. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Another sock [91] ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy aka JarlaxleArtemis is back

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

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

And More Nonsense[edit]

Posting here as well as AIV: [92] ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aye. Speaking as someone who's dealt extensively with him in this phase of his cycle and someone who keeps up to date on his LTA page, revert the garbage, provide a diff of the disturbing edit (and/or forward any disturbing emails you receive) to the Foundation via email as per the LTA report, and semi-protect his targets for a brief while. (Abuse filters don't work too well as he just probes them until he finds something that works.) —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Long term abuse user again back[edit]

See previous thread. Now back as Special:Contributions/ (Edit summaries and edits are pretty obviously JarlaxleArtemis, particular in their attacks against Sean.hoyland. Likely to reappear under a different IP or username as soon as blocked. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

More Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis disruption. Please block

...and semi-protect every page edited. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the nature of the edit at 1929 Hebron massacre and the details for, these IPs are likely to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis.

Others include

Every page edited by JarlaxleArtemis needs semi-protection. That is more important that revdeling their edit summaries. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) tried to delete Sean's above post, and then reverted a random edit of his, so I'm guessing it's probably the same guy as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Need eyes on user creation log. Attack usernames are again being created, similar to the spree at 22nd July. (revdelled) example can be found at 22:08 (20:08 UTC) in the user creation log. Going by the pattern established, more usernames of a similar kind will likely pop up soon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Please look through this part of the userlist and block the one not yet blocked. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No need, someone locked it globally. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, good to know. Hope that's the end of this for now, I can imagine nicer things to do with my time than hunt this one down to prevent further disruption. Also, my strongest possible sympathies for having to deal with this, Nawlin. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem - I'm used to it. Jeremy's obsessive/repetitive behaviors haven't changed one bit since he was 15 years old and was upset with Wikipedia for not posting his Dungeons and Dragons articles. It's almost Pavlovian. Interfere with his vandalism, and he starts posting the same old cowardly, yet machinelike insults. Not even interesting anymore. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    It's really quite sad to see that even after all these years he's still at it. You'd think he would have grown up and moved on by now. Blackmane (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
NawlinWiki I put in the request for oversight. As for a more permanent solution, the Foundation legal department really should file a complaint with the FBI under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Appeals to him, his mother, his ISP(s) have all fallen on deaf ears. I know the Foundation has (to my knowledge) never pursued charges against an individual, perhaps it is time. With so many years as evidence, it's the only way I can see to get Jeremy to stop. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 19:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
IANAL, but due to his constant use of open proxies and his (past) tendency to have 4chan users post his threats by proxy, wouldn't it be nigh-impossible to confirm it is him as far as a court of law goes? (Also, I'm under the impression from the LTA page that the Foundation is either already contemplating or in the process of doing so, in which case they wouldn't be saying anything one way or another.) —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I am a lawyer. (this is not legal advice just opinion) The long, long history easily confirmed enough of it is him to give at least probable cause for various search warrants. The proof they would gather from the various ISPs, the Foundation, Wikia, etc could easily lock him away for a long time. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 22:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Addition: I agree that the LTA page points that the foundation is already considering legal action, I'm just requesting that the Foundation actually pursue it. I'm sure I'm not the only editor that would be more than a little relieved to see a story on CNN about Jeremy being arrested. Now, the fact that some of the abuse occurred when he was a minor could complicate things, but since he's been at it so long, even just prosecuting the stuff since he was of legal age would most likely garner a conviction. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 23:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Failure to follow accessibility guidelines[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bgwhite notified me of this conversation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEng, Graham talks about your screenreader question here... I think. Bgwhite (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Not really. He just says what he says in this thread, which is that users of screenreaders have a habit of skipping from the TOC to the next section head, which is completely consistent with all I say elsewhere here, and doesn't answer any of my questions. EEng (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The "n" key can be used to skip to the next block of text; it does work in this case ... I don't know about anybody else, but I would never think of using it to move to the first heading of a page, because the "H" key suffices for that in almost all cases. Re: putting images in their appropriate sections, that's good for screen reader users but not *that* big a deal IMO – on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd rate it a three, whereas I'd rate the TOC issue about a nine. I've never heard of any guideline about avoiding images at the start of a section ... that sounds silly to me. Graham87 03:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I clearly remember someone beating me over the head about putting an image at the start of a section, but I'm not sure I ever saw that in a guideline -- sometimes people make stuff like this up because they have nothing better to do, it seems.
  • Now back to the main point... am I understanding that if the reader starts speaking out the TOC, if you hit n will it skip to the end of the TOC, instead of to the start of the next section (as h does)? Now, if there's nothing between the end of the TOC and the start of the next section (as is normally the case) then these are the same thing; but if you're worried about missing the possibility of text after the TOC, isn't the solution to get in the habit of using n instead of h, and not to outlaw text after the TOC?
EEng (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @EEng: Yes, you're right about the difference between "h" and "n". But use of "h" is far more intuitive for the average screen reader user, because the "n" key is usually used as a last resort when they're aren't any other elements to navigate by. The first time I ever encountered a TOC in a non-standard position in the wiki-markup, I thought the article had been vandalised, because I couldn't find its lead section. Graham87 08:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(Just to be clear, I think by "lead section" you mean the first section headed by "==" -- you don't mean the article's WP:LEAD. right?) It still sounds like n is the thing that will skip the rest of the TOC when you don't want to hear the rest of the TOC, but for some reason fairly (I think) described as "well, that's our habit", a lot of people use h instead. Assuming that's a fair characterization, in all candor the most logical solution to that is for people to start using n instead of h, instead of having one more rule about how articles should be organized. It's a minor point affecting few article apparently, but (just like angry self-righteous people always say in court) IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MATTER! What do you think? EEng (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Ihardlythinkso blocked 1 week for IBAN violations per consensus here. I think this discussion is finished. If another admin thinks there is more to discuss you can reverse this archiving. Chillum 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Ihardlythinkso and I are subject to an interaction ban. Recently almost every edit he has made has clearly referred to me and my edits, though without naming me, e.g. [93], [94]. I gave a clear warning on User:Fluffernutter's talk page that this is unacceptable and if it continued I would open an ANI thread. She also explained to him that any reference to me or my edits in any capacity is a violation of the IBAN. His edit to his sub-page where he sarcastically recites various wikipedia cliche's is clearly a reference to my "enough is enough" on Fluffernutter's page. He is clearly trying to push the boundaries and see what he can get away with. He has already been blocked twice for violations of the interaction ban and continues to flout it. Clearly he needs a lengthier block before he will get the message. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I'd support Fluffernutter's solution here. Make the boundary explicit (even if we felt it was implied strongly enough before) and act on that if it is breached. Protonk (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Protonk, yes, I think that's logical. That boudary (listing an edit w/ commentary) was not clear to me. But I've asked too, about another boundary, explained below, which Max feels is not a violation (but Blackmane does, and I think Drmies too). To me the two are branches off the same tree, but if that isn't consensus, okay. The guidance at WP:IBAN says "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way", and I am unclear, if Max's edit to the Talk:Chess discussion linked below, was "avoiding me" or not. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I note that this has been clearly explained to IHTS already. The diffs MaxBrowne pointed to already came after clear warnings. Indeed, exactly the same behavior is continuing now: "And, if I am restricted from commenting on the quailty of a copyedit authored by user Y, then I defintely accept your view, which restricts user Y from in-[my]-face commentary at discussion threads, which he/she has already proved he/she is prone to do, with impunity, and drove a semi-contrary admin away in the process." [95]. --Amble (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Here is the thread at Talk:Chess [96].
  • Here is MaxBrowne's reply to Drmies [97].
  • Here is my subpage list of edits & some commentary [98]
  • Here is the offending edit in the subpage list which started everything (I can't link to it since it was removed from WP space when I deleted/recreated the subpage in order to rename it):

    * Kasparov versus the World, July 3, 2014: [99] Unnecessary and potentially ambiguous ("Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood"—MOS) elimination of possessive pronoun "it". (The only pronoun to appropriately and successfully reference "team".)

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

Too long to read. Can this be summarized? If not, the length of your post is likely to annoy the community and to change an interaction ban into a community ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
All those words still bring us back to one question, Ihardlythinkso: are you willing to commit to not discussing Max or his edits, either directly or by referencing them, anywhere on Wikipedia? That means if you're in doubt about whether something would violate your ban or not, you don't say it. Right now, we're not interested in if you think it's fair, or if he should do it too, or if he said something you think contradicts something else, or what anyone else said about anything. We're interested in if you will follow the policy as it has now been explained to you. If you will, say "yes" - just "yes", not a long paragraph about why - and we can all move on. If you can't or won't, say "no" so the community knows that and can act accordingly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
are you willing to commit to not discussing Max or his edits, either directly or by referencing them, anywhere on Wikipedia? Absolutely, yes. (But Fluff, I never anywhere said anything wasn't "fair", only that it wasn't clear [from WP:IBAN]. I thought Sjakkalle was misinterpreting IBAN.) But I have also asked for clarification on Max's entering discussion threads where I am, as explained above. (Why are we failing to address that? The IBAN was a mutual IBAN. You feel WP:IBAN doesn't prohibit the Talk commentary I linked above, Blackmane disagrees with you, and I think Drmies disagrees, too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
In any ANI, the OP's behavior is subject to scrutiny as well. So my Q about Max posting contrary commentary in discussion threads, and whether that is against IBAN, isn't inappropriate. (But my motivation to ask if it's a violation, is not some tit-for-tat to try and punish Max, but to gain clarification about the IBAN, like I tried to do in two ANs but there was no discussion or answer on the point. [Both Blackmane and Fluffernutter provided answers in Talk discussions with them later, but their answers were opposite one another.]) As everyone knows I see comments on the quality of a copyedit, and comments in article discussion threads essentially the same (two branches on the content tree), but is just my opinion, and I haven't insisted on it, I've only asked for clarification. (And if Max's discussion contributions like the one I linked above is disallowed, then here is the time & place to inform Max. [And if that's the way it goes, I'm not sure he would be happy based on his remarks to Drmies, and I don't blame him, either. Because as already explained I'd prefer liberal where content commentary is at play, for the sake of articles. But there's no doubt too, Max's posts in two discussion threads, were designed to confront and challenge, and that kind of deliberate posting is certainly "interaction" covered by IBAN, which Blackmane sees, and Drmies too since he asked Max to stop it.] I would "trade" with Max the ability of him to make contrarian discussion comments anywhere, with my ability to comment on any edit of his that I objectively think disimproves an article on my watchlist, at my user subpage, however I'm not proposing "deal-making" at ANI, I'm just saying it to convey there needs to be equitable balance in the IBAN rules for both of us.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No one should accuse another of "stalking" without good reason. Max had done so to me (again) in this ANI. And what is the basis? (I have no idea what basis he's using to make that charge. I would like to see him explain.) He left "enough is enough" in front my nose at Fluffernutter's Talk, that was him following my edits, not vice versa. And the accusation that I updated my parody paragraph in my subpage to irritate him, is absurd. (When I created that parody paragraph, I thought hard what were all the WP templated memes I've seen used again and again in WP spaces to railroad users to bans. "Enough is enough" is one I've seen a lot and particularly dislike, because it's meaningless tautology on par w/ Popeye's "I am what I am and that's all what I am" and "That's all's I can standz, 'cause I can't standz no more!". So when I saw Max use it I thought: "Shit! How could I forget one of my most hated memes?!" and updated my parody paragraph to incorporate what I should have the first time. So now Max had interpreted this to be a personal jab at him, and that just doesn't/didn't exist, but meanwhile he has "no doubt whatsoever" it was an jab designed intentionally for him. Clearly he should doubt more. And the accusations of being "obsessed" about him also are unfounded and I think it's clear the reverse is true. I have not stalked Max's edits at any time, but he is clearly stalking mine, every word I write, seeing ghosts, then accusing and claiming persecution. I did not open this ANI and I did not make irresponsible claims and charges. It isn't the first or worst time he's done this. Meanwhile, my highest guilt is using "user Y" in user Talk discussions when trying to get clarifications on my IBAN Qs.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed block of Ihardlythinkso for interaction[edit]

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

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

Calling the user in an interaction back "user Y" does not get around the fact that he is commenting on him when he says "restricts user Y from in-[my]-face commentary at discussion threads, which he/she has already proved he/she is prone to do, with impunity, and drove a semi-contrary admin away in the process"[100]

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

I can't say if that's a correct block length. If it's a first offense, I think shorter would be better. But I have to say this: If editor A is in an interaction ban with editor B, then editor A should make an active, conscious effort to avoid editor B at all costs. Stay away from the editor, stay away from the editor's edits, take anything connected with that editor off the watch list. Avoid temptation, and avoid the possibility of future blocks. Draw a bright line between oneself and the other editor. No problems after that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not a first offense, it is the 3rd. His first block was for 24 hours (Disruptive editing: Violating WP:IBAN per this discussion.) and his second block was 72 hours (repeated breaches of interaction ban and personal attacks). I figured a week was the correct next step. A fourth step I think would be indef until such a time as he could convince the community to unblock. Chillum 23:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to anyone, that after being frustrated by two ANs where I tried to get clarification on two things about IBAN, but there was no discussion and I didn't perceive any answers that addressed consistency with what's at WP:IBAN, that I responded to both Fluffernutter and Blackmain when they initiated a Q or Talk thread with me, in further effort to get to answers while someone was willing to help me after Drmies told me to "fuck off"? And when they made reference to who I was in IBAN with, that I followed suit when necessary in the discussion in order to get to answers? This is being characterized as "gaming the system" by Chillum, and that's just bad-faith mischaracterization and totally wrong. I did not know whether making reference was or wasn't IBAN violation in those discussions, because, those discussions stemmed from the ANs, and I guessed that admin would see them as joint with those ANs, and I was also sensitive if Fluffernutter or Blackmane had warned me in those discussions not to make said reference, which they were also making, but they didn't. If WP:IBAN had been clear, if "tailoring" which Blackmane said is usual when IBANs are issued had been done, if Drmies had helped me understand my confusions, if I had gotten discussion to answers at the ANs, then there wouldn't have been the Talk discussions when Fluffernutter and Blackmane reached out to me to help. (So, tell me again how I've "gamed the system"??? That's completely malicious.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose For the purposes of getting through this once and for all, the above explicit conditions and a final warning to the two of them should suffice. Blackmane (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Support. IHTS is perfectly aware of what is required of him. He has two threads still on the current page of WP:AN on this very topic, in which the same answer has been given: WP:AN#Clarification on IBAN (or, perhaps more timely, please get admin Sjakkalle off my back) and WP:AN#Clarification on IBAN (or, stop admin Sjakkalle from hounding me). This discussion seems to be converting an IBAN into a logical game along the lines of What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. --Amble (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Right. And you're the editor who called MaxBrowne's "classic narcissist" slur against me OK, because it was "in context". Nice. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not at all an accurate restatement of anything I wrote. It's also irrelevant to the current discussion. --Amble (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support one week, two weeks, whatever. The length of this thread (and the many attendant conversations all over the place) are indicative of the extent to which Ihardlythinkso manages to wikilawyer every little bit all over the project. At some point it needs to stop. An alternate solution might be to impose an edit limit (size matters). For instance, say they wish to post a note somewhere. A typical note from them takes up about 8,000 words, in one single paragraph. A suitable restriction would be to limit them to 1% of their post. I urge the WMF to make this technically feasible, inventing a Preview-Edit Restriction Portal along the way. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I went to Drmies' Talk in good faith to ask Qs that would help me clarify my IBAN, since I was confused, because I saw him active in that area. Instead of just helping with answers this is how I was treated [101]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you've gone anywhere in good faith recently: you certainly didn't come to my talk page in good faith. I don't know what you're doing here anyway--I thought you didn't believe in ANI? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not true, Drmies.
Yeah, there was certainly no good faith displayed on Dennis Brown's talk page. I agree with Drmies on this.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Dennis was out-of-line. I responded. Ihardlythinkso (talk)
  • Your post on Drmies' page was itself a violation of the interaction ban. What were you hoping to achieve by it anyway, some kind of petty point scoring exercise? If you had a problem with my post on Talk:Chess (which did not make reference to you or your edits), you should have raised it on AN or ANI, instead of shopping around for a sympathetic admin, hijacking someone else's thread on an unrelated IBAN discussion on an admin's talk page and picking at the scabs a month and a half after the event. Whether or not the opinion I expressed on Talk:Chess concurred with your own is basically irrelevant; the only issue is whether in replying to the original poster Beneficii, I was violating the IBAN. As a member of Wikiproject Chess, the Chess article is naturally on my watchlist so Beneficii's Chess talk page discussion naturally came up. I didn't think I was violating the IBAN but I can see now that to be on the safe side it was probably better not to reply to it, just to avoid the perception of violating the IBAN (which was basically Drmies's point). Drmies's post to my talk page was more of a mild request than a warning, so my reply was probably a little more... assertive than it needed to be. I was pissed off about the circumstances in which the issue had been raised.

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

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

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

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

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

    The interaction ban is not canon law or the federalist papers. Interaction bans are simple. They do not require a tenth of the interpretation you've wrung out of them across multiple noticeboards. Interaction bans (and ideally, any rule in a place like wikipedia) are not exhaustive, interlocking and potentially contradictory stipulations. They're a simple admonition to not interact with another editor. Does that ban apply if you're both on different pages in different conversations? Probably. Often you'll be expected to use your best judgment to avoid violating an interaction ban. So discussing specific edits of an editor while assiduously avoiding discussing the editor might be one of those cases where someone might have said "maybe this violates the spirit of the ban". If even the request for clarification on the scope of the ban fills you with concern that it may be a violation on it's own, maybe the answer to that request is "no, do not go do that thing." Protonk (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    I honestly didn't view posting Max's edit and critique of it as "interacting with a user", and there was nothing personal or "gaming" since my orientation and interest is/was w/ content (not to poke someone). The fact that I was harshly reverted, accused, and threatened by Sjakkalle, was unreasonable and bad-faith, but he described it as that he was more "lenient" towards me that I deserved. Pure grudge, and pure "canon law and federalist papers". So please don't accuse me of being the wikilawyer, when I'm not the one. If he would have discussed first rather than acted harshly and gotten snarky, maybe there could have been better understanding rather than my need to open ANs in view that his view was a misinterpretation behind a need to exercise a grudge. I'm fine with stupulations to use common sense and be reasonable, but that was not done to me, the same expectation should be exercised by others. I thought I was in genuine compliance with WP:IBAN after a good-faith reading. My comments re edit quality was because I'm focused on content and was nothing personal. The hyperactivity to claim I was "dancing on fringe", "wikilayering", "gaming the system", is all extreme example of the opposite of behaving reasonably, with common sense and in good faith. Why heap all the reprimand on me, when others demo irresponsible and unreasonable behaviors to the extreme? There is also the grudge factor from Sjakkalle, which is an entirely different thing too, not coverable by any policy. p.s. I would probably never have cause to think a request for clarification on the scope of IBAN is a violation in itself; however, it would now cross my mind that others are apt to jump on it in bad-faith and make such ridiculous claims, all coming out of the hostile and nasty envirnoment of the WP, including grudges to harm someone disliked. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Ask any outside observer where the wikilawyering in this thread is coming from. You may not like the answer, but you need to hear it. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per a nod to, and to Fluff. I don't think a short block is going to fix what is wrong, and will likely make things worse. We are at a tipping point, and the only solutions are an epiphany by IHTS or an indef block by the community, and we don't have the power to propose or enforce an epiphany. A one week block seems more akin to poking the bear. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I do agree it comes off as punative, and feel as well there are elements of bad-faith (accusation of "gaming the system"). It is easier to "kill the messenger" than invest time/effort to explain & repair the vaguenesses at WP:IBAN. But I also know my expectations of others are too high. (So I don't take it personally, Dennis.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This edit is mildly encouraging. Let's just make it absolutely clear - no linking to a post or thread involving the other party, no skirting the edges, no testing the boundaries, no baiting, no oblique references, no quoting, no "plausible denial", no arguing over semantics, no wikilawyering. Avoid even the perception of referring to the other party. If in doubt, just don't. I'll abide by the same. (btw don't think an IP user should be taken seriously in an ANI thread). MaxBrowne (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But Max, you are employing "plausible denial" by justifying your aggressive contrarian posts at the Talk:Chess thread, and your research and followup in the same vein at the shogi project page (the fact I hadn't posted there earlier is an escapist argument). I actually have no problem with your in-my-face contrarian posts in discussion threads, and would never claim "IBAN violation" against you because of it, if in exchange you wouldn't get so overly sensitive if I critique the content of an edit of yours that I objectively feel is a disimprovement to an article. (However, that seems impossible now, since even though there is nothing at WP:IBAN prohibiting said critique, it's been made overwhelmingly clear to me now that admins read that in.) Nothing personal. (You have misinterpreted my query attempt with Drmies at his Talk; I was shocked to see him actually delete content discussion posts by another user in an IBAN! [Somehow that seemed very wrong to me and counter everything good about the WP.] So I went to him to try to get an understanding of the basis and what principles he was applying, as his actions seemed quite drastic; you asked what did I hope to achieve w/ Drmies? Simply to get info from his that I could undersand his rationale.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's an honest Q for somebody brave: Max initiated the direct dialogue and interaction w/ me here in this ANI, not me. Is anyone sure that IBAN permits this, even in a venue which permits reference to the other user, if the topic is IBAN clarification or violation complaint? (Is there previous precedent w/ this, where users in IBAN engage directly w/ one another? Where is that documented in policy that it is OK?) Just a Q; not a complaint. (My guess is there is lots of undefined and unknown, re the requrements of IBANs. That is rope to victimize someone, and victimization is such a popular sport on the WP.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It was Sjakkalle, not me, who pulled you up for your IBAN violation in your passive-aggressive "heading to gray goo" subpage, and he was definitely not acting at my instigation, regardless of any speculations/accusations you have made. So please drop the "over-sensitive" crap. I actually think it was an unwise move on his part. The outcome was utterly predictable - massive over-reaction on your part, and several hours of wasted person-hours which could have been spent on productive editing. You were doing some good work and he should have left you to it. I have no taste for wiki-drama, in fact I despise it, and I have little respect for editors who spend more time commenting on the drama boards than they do producing content. This is why I never complained about your link to my post even though it was a clear-cut IBAN violation. I really don't want any more problems with you. I hate drama. Despise it. I hate this board too. But if you keep up with the baiting, the oblique references, the linking to my edits/threads, the "plausible denials", the semantics etc etc then I will have no other recourse. If in doubt just don't. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But your history of over-sensitivity and imagined persecutions are undeniable in your edit history, Max. (Just sayin'.) I cannot believe Sjakkalle was stalking my edits or browsing my user subpage, on his own. Based on your proven oversensitivity demonstrable by many diffs, and your following my edits as well, it's a reasonable supposition that you tipped-off Sjakkalle, and admin friendly to you and who has clear grudges against me. (I've asked Sjakkalle to explain how he came to be aware of that edit post of yours more than once; no reply.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"Based on your proven oversensitivity demonstrable by many diffs, and your following my edits as well, it's a reasonable supposition that you tipped-off Sjakkalle". I have stated very clearly, a number of times, that I had nothing to do with Sjakkalle's pulling you up on your IBAN violation. Are you calling me a liar? Put up or shut up, motherfucker. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that a long term or indef block could be seen as justifiable and that yes, perhaps in their current state, the editor would become worse after a short, one week block. I agree that a longer block may be needed but have to wonder if a longer block right now would be seen too much. I will say I do understand what Dennis is saying, I just wonder if we should try to take this one step at a time. But...frankly I would not be even slightly disappointed if the editor was indeffed. The standard offer would apply.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1 week block - editor does not get it, they've been given more than enough chances. Next time (and I hope there isn't a next time) should be indef. GiantSnowman 15:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1 week block, but strongly suggest indef, based on continued WP:NPA, as demonstrated above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ihardlythinkso believes either that I am stalking him or that MaxBrowne solicited my help. Neither is the case. I cannot quite remember how I came across the page, it was probably via a "what links here" link where a "grey goo" title will picque interest. If I had been actively stalking Ihardlythinkso, I would have discovered the entry much sooner, not 17 days after. By then it was so old that any blocking would be merely punitive, but it was nevertheless a standing breach of the IBAN. I only issued a warning for what is a clear-cut breach of the IBAN and removed the offending entry, I didn't seek out any blocking of Ihardlythinkso over this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Support 1 week block for continued and multiple violations of the interaction ban over the past two days. The smart thing to do would have been to either accept that he had crossed the line or make a polite request if something was unclear. Instead his first response was to make an absurd accusation ("Apparently you are stalking my edits with a bias against me, actively looking for a way to strike at me, and that itself is not only aggressive and biased but then unbecoming of admin."), and proceeding to open to AN threads calling for me to be sanctioned. The counterproposal by him I have already responded to below. The limits of an IBAN are nowhere near as difficult to comprehend as suggested, and the claim that he thought that putting MaxBrowne's edit on his "grey goo" list was compliant with the IBAN is implausible. The diff provided in Chillum's proposal is further gratuitous and prohibited interaction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, though frankly, given the relentless IDHT behaviour exhibited by Ihardlythinkso - including in the 'radical proposal' below - I have to suggest that a longer block might be justified, in order to ensure the message sinks in once and for all. Just how difficult is it for someone to understand plain and simple instructions to stay away from another editor? Not to nitpick over exactly what 'staying away' means, but to stay the %*@# away, without commenting further. At all. Ever. Even if you think the IBAN was unjustified. Even if you think the IBAN is resulting in the sky falling in... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    I have very little doubt that an indef block is heading towards IHTS if he doesn't radically change his behavior in several respects. My support of a 1 week block is not because I believe it will, by itself, solve the problem, but that it might get through to IHTS how close to the edge he has managed to get. That's probably a forlorn hope, given his block log, but I do think he should be given this last chance before the next step is taken, which is an indef block or, potentially, a community ban. BMK (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think Dennis is correct, but this is one situation where I don't mind a bit of process for the sake of process. If we're back here in a week, give or take, the indef should be pretty straightforward. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If IHTS agrees to stay away from MaxBrowne, and actually does stay away, there is little more to discuss here. If he continues this behavior after the ANI, then there can be a case for a block. KonveyorBelt 15:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is preventative because he is continuing interaction after numerous warnings and prior blocks. Just read this very thread to see him still interacting with MaxBrowne. Chillum 17:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BANEX you are allowed to participate on dispute resolution, which this is.KonveyorBelt 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That isn't what Chillum was saying. Do you really think this is a proposed block because of interaction on this thread? Please read further.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a block of one week to one month. Not only does this editor not understand what an IBAN is, and has continued to test the limits of the community's patience, but then this editor has insulted the community with a counter-proposal to behave properly only if the IBAN is moved and if Max apologizes. In other words, the condescending counter-offer is to behave properly only if he is able to walk away claiming victory. I would support a site ban if there had been a previous warning, which there has not. If, after the block, this editor repeats the limit-testing behavior, an indef block is needed, and the community can then site-ban. I know that Ihardlythinkso has been a constructive editor in the past, but his feud with Max Browne is causing more damage and drama than he is now contributing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indef block - A tough call, given this editor's valued work, but the attitude displayed here and elsewhere appears to be combative, hostile, defensive, and disruptive. A block should indeed be preventative and not punitive, so I call for an indef rather than a week or month, until such time as IHTS displays sincere contrition and agrees to stop the behaviors that have led to blocks. Any further disruption should then be subject to a ban discussion. Jusdafax 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 1 week Given the clear consensus here I have block IHTS for 1 week. I have linked to this discussion and pointed out that the patience of the community is wearing thin. While several people suggested longer or indef block I don't see consensus for that at this point. Chillum 14:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal from IHTS[edit]

I have a radical alternative proposal.

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

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

  • No BMK (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to assume good faith on what you are suggesting, but in it I see too much evidence of the contrary.
    1. Attaching a condition that Max apologize to you would on its own invalidates the entire proposal. Everybody is required to follow the Civility and No Personal Attacks policies, they are not bargaining chips that we negotiate with. Sanctions are lifted when there has been a significant improvement in behavior, one that demonstrates that it is safe to lift the restrictions. They are not lifted because the sanctionee doesn't like them, or demonstrated that they are unable to abide by them. There is no chance that I will support lifting the interaction ban as of now. It is too late for mere promises.
    2. Over the past months you have been engaged in personal attacks, swearing [102], and constant accusations, such as the one calling me an abusive and stalking admin [103]. I have no real grudge against you. I notice only that you suddenly decided to take on an extremely hostile tone against me on January 23, and over the next weeks and months told a whole slew of editors to "fuck off" while denying that there was anything wrong with your conduct. Now suddenly, with a block staring you in the face, you claim that you can just have an epiphany? That you can just throw a switch and change your conduct suggests that your postings were not written out of real anger, but a deliberate attempt to cause grief to members of the community. An epiphany is not something you can just "throw in".
    3. Your latest statement seems carefully worded at first glance, but in reality it reeks of continued arrogance. You are demanding an apology from Max, yet there is no hint of an apology to the countless users that you have told to "fuck off" in one way or another. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Per the short and brief answer from BMK...which I agree with and the longer response from Sjakkalle which is spot on.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, but drop #1 and #5 and we could be on the right path. --Amble (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If you continue the I-Ban (#1) then #2 is not relevant as they would not be allowed to interact. But even if we were to drop the interaction ban, I don't see #2 as a real promise. The actual promise suggests that IHTS would still do things that would be...a bad idea, and that is to: "gently go to his Talk... to express my view and why". See...I myself see that as a problem. If the editor had said they would NOT go to the other editors talk page and stay on the article talk page I might see something worth supporting. #4 isn't even a proposal but just telling the community they can do something they already are able to do...and are doing it now. I see this as stalling only because I don't see this as sincere at the moment. #3 is the closest to a real proposal but they still define a "legitimate grievance" as issues with admin for blocks or comments which leaves a huge gap between what they are proposing and what they are actually saying.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No per Sjakkalle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No This user's wikilawyering must stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would strongly oppose any move to lift the interaction ban. If the other party to this ban were to go through at least two years of editing with no drama, no violations of WP:IBAN, no violations of WP:NPA or WP:CIV against any other editor etc etc, I may consider a request to lift the IBAN. Otherwise forget it. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The terms of the IBAN are not negotiable by either you or IHTS. The IBAN was necessarily enacted, and it quite obviously will remain in place. The "conditions" you suggest are almost as unrealistic as his. Both of you: avoid each other at all costs. Enough of this stupid drama already. Doc talk 05:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • MacBrowne, if you'll accept some constructive criticism, let me say to you: Shut the fuck up. I think you'll find that this will be the best action on your part. BMK (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, no, no - This counter-proposal is insulting the community, in asking to have the IBAN lifted and an apology in exchange for what always should have been good behavior. In other words, "I will stop harassing the other editor if I can claim victory, but, because the IBAN will be lifted, you won't be able to ensure that I don't harass the other editor." No, no, no. As noted above, this insulting response almost warrants a Site Ban. The counter-proposal is so arrogant and condescending, when discussion is required, that it warrants an immediate block. I would prefer a month over a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

IP disruption of talk page[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and unfounded (and honestly, ignorant) accusations of bad faith at Talk:Robert Garside. Two sections followed by [104]. When placing a warning on the IP's talk page I noticed a sockpuppetry warning leading to User:Dromeaz. As it's the same article, quack, quack? --NeilN talk to me 16:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Still at it (badly). Switched IP's to yesterday's. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --NeilN talk to me 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Now this same user is disrupting another talk page [105] CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Ring Cinema and The Godfather[edit]

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

This is purely a content dispute and this thread should be closed ASAP. WP:3O, WP:RFC and WP:DRN are the options available to Disc Wheel. MarnetteD|Talk 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks man, will do. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to strongly disagree with MarnetteD on her assessment. Because the article in question is on my watch list, I have been paying attention to Disc Wheel's appropriate content additions and copy edits at the article for the last several days. These are good edits. I've also been watching the discussion between Disc and Ring with interest because Ring has a history of both article ownership issues and edit warring. His article ownership and lack of civility is well known and his block log for edit warring is long (see here:[106]). This report is just a continuation of more of the same kind of complaints already made and reports filed in the past regarding Ring. Disc Wheel filing this report here is appropriate and warranted, in my opinion.
For example: The following revert links are characteristic of Ring's tendency to blanket revert and edit war at articles where he appears to have ownership issues. His most recent block was for edit warring and imposed for one month, starting May 1, 2014. His blanket/catch-all reverts typically have edit summaries containing "doesn't add to the article", "trivia", "not well written", whether true or not. Rather than editing what has been edited to improve upon it, he just reverts all of it. It's also worthy to note that Ring had not once gone to the article talk page over the last few days to discuss with Disc, just revert. In my opinion, this is Ring's status quo edit warring and ownership behavior that's been going on for years. Some will likely disagree with me, but in light of Ring's very recent month-long block for edit warring, I think this latest report should be looked at for what appears to be ownership as well as repeated and continued edit warring behavior. [107]; [108]; [109]; [110]; [111].

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

It is still a content dispute. If you have a problem with Ring Cinema then WP:RFC/U is your next step. Admins are not going to take action here on either of these complaints. BTW you got my gender wrong. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll take it to the RFC then. Thanks for the help. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of how Winkelvi feels about Ring's reverts it is still a content dispute and Marnette has correctly outlined the available options. I will also add that you need to start a discussion on the article talk page that addresses the specific edits being disputed. Any external process will want to see a valid attempt by both parties to resolves the issues with the article rather than issues with each other. If there is a discourse on the talk page then other editors who have this article on their watchlist can add their own opinions; if opinion is completely against Ring then he has to respect the consensus, but at the same time we cannot assume Ring's edits are improper simply because another editor has also had an altercation with him at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If Ring hadn't been exhibiting the same edit warring behavior as all the other times, I'd agree it's only a content dispute. And, sorry about the gender blunder, MarnetteD. The "ette" in your name gave me the impression you are female. Oops! -- Winkelvi 18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Disc Wheel: RFC/U is only for commenting on a user there will be no consideration of or action taken regarding your edits to the films article. You would be better off using the dispute resolution links I gave you earlier in this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: You are making statements about RC while presenting no evidence to support them. No admin is going to act on your assertions here. RFC/U is still the place to be but you will need to present a stronger case than you have so far. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. Thanks. I will amend the above to include diffs. -- Winkelvi 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I have posted on the talk page now and in the dispute resolution section. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The other issue is the multiple reverts made by RC against Disc Wheel and Corvoe in the last day or so. He has been blocked eight times in the past for this, with the last block being for 1 month in May of this year. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
He's constantly reverting my edits for the aforementioned reasons despite when other editors have expressed their satisfaction with my efforts (1, 2). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I see sufficient behavioural issues from Ring Cinema to block. I await their response, and I've advised them of that in 2 places the panda ₯’ 22:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Really DangerousPanda? Would you care to elaborate on how your threat to block would be preventive rather than punitive? Or why you would step in here when there are other behaviors that don't even come close to this. There have been numerous and wide ranging posts on the talk page (and to) the article by multiple editors so far. As yet disagreements are still being worked through. There have been a ton of violations of commenting on contributor over content. In this situation I can see no reason to remove one editor from the discussions. Way too many accusations have been thrown around, with little proof, At the level displayed so far any blocks would be dubious without further elaboration. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought that we were instructed to resolve this on the talk page. There is a discussion at the talk page about the content that is ongoing. It's important to note that the complaining editor added material that upon review of his new sources has turned out to be incorrect in several cases. My edits are good faith attempts to improve the article, and I think that is self-evident upon review. No one has changed any of my edits with the exception of the issue that has been resolved -- in my favor. Corvoe apologized for his behavior in that case. I have asked repeatedly what material is missing from the article that my edits changed and haven't had anything specific mentioned. Disc Wheel made many changes, and almost without exception I have incorporated the material he added even when I organized it differently. That is just trying to improve the article. If something is significant that has been removed, it hasn't been mentioned or added to the article. This is just the process of editing. Winkelvi habitually makes ad hominem attacks on me and has in the past attempted to conspire with other editors in content disputes with me. He hasn't made any substantive suggestions or improvements in this case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:16, 23July 2014 (UTC)

BettyLogan on the Godfather talk page: "The problem so far with the mass changes that Disc Wheel has initiated is that while we obviously welcome the addition of sourced content some of Ring's criticisms are not without merit so as a neutral I feel a bit betwixt and between in that each version has its good points and its flaws." --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There's only three instances I can find where you have called me out for being incorrect. The instance where I misunderstood a word ([112]), where Ring could have simply corrected it to ".... agreed to interplay light and dark scenes" rather than just remove the whole sentence as a whole. The second Ring claimed an edit of mine to be incorrect or inaccurate was this ([113]), where he changed the title of the section from "Coppola Restoration" to "Restoration". I had it as "Coppola Restoration" because that's what the name of the series of DVD's that were made from the restored film, so I thought it wasn't a problem since the section talked of only things related to the "Coppola Restoration." The final one ([114]) where I submitted an edit misinterpreting the source, but instead Ring removed the whole sentence instead of changing it to make it correct. Those were the only edits (based off his edit summaries) that relate to inaccuracies on my part, for which I apologize for making. They were not intentional. I would like to say the last one was brought on by just being in front of the computer for an expanded duration and being tired, but who knows it was days ago. I mentioned some of what I found to be missing or removed completely on the talk page [115], its been up for a few hours. I have more prepared to post if need be. I had also tried to explain why some sections should stay in edit summaries and on his talk page too, but Ring ultimately disregarded them for the reasons that I have, again, stated in my initial post.
As for changing your edits, I have tried to but you constantly revert them and restate the reasons I have mentioned in my initial post. Other editors have done the same too, with you again just reverting them in favor of your edits. I stopped trying to edit the page because I knew nothing good would come of it, so I moved my version to my sandbox to edit it further until this issue is resolved. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Two more recent edits ([116], [117]) show more harsh comments from Ring. In addition I feel that its worth noting he wants the page to stay with his edits, citing a consensus policy that several authors have informed of being incorrect. I don't believe that that has been mentioned here. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 00:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not accurate. The only time you changed one of my edits was when I had restored the Coppola quotation and you removed it again. Okay, that has been in the article and is the result of a longstanding consensus. One editor like you doesn't get to decide it's out. Sorry.
Should I have corrected the sentence you screwed up about Willis and Coppola? I thought about it, but it's a complicated thing. This discussion should be had on the talk page. I still don't really accept your assertion that you have a source that says that 'interplay' means 'alternating', which was your defense.
Personally, I think that introducing three errors is a lot. The only way to catch them is to go back and read your sources, which is a very big job I've had to do. At first, I assumed that you would get things right but if I can't assume that, it is a lot to just trust that your edits are accurate when you are changing the article. In fact, I don't trust any more that something you've sourced is necessarily accurate. But that is a content issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Where's you proof of the consensus? And I personally don't think checking the sources is that time consuming when the pages for the books and magazines are in the citation so that makes for easy access to where the fact in questions should be found and for web pages you can always CTRL + F to find it. The Coppola quote source - a DVD commentary - on the otherhand makes it difficult to verify considering I don't have that edition of the film. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 00:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


NAC:Blocked three months Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


NAC: Neutralhomersimpon, who is not Neutralhomer, has been blocked Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just an empty threat by someone used to waving authority around. Nobody is going to get in trouble for reporting public information. If it disrupts their safety over freedom campaign I will not lose sleep over it. Chillum 15:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing uncivility[edit]

Hi we have an editor who is disruptive. He has an open SPI as well. Here [[118]]. Hes being abusive here [[119]] and earlier here [[120]] and here [[121]] I have put a be civil link on the page earlier and reminded him again now and will put a subst:ANI-notice on his talk page. Hes got an agenda I suspect. We are pretty much ignoring him for now and I dont believe he will listen to WP protocol from me. Thank you. SaintAviator talk 07:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've notified them since you didn't seem to have gotten around to it. I'd like to point out that all the links you've provided above are diffs of your own edits. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, as far as I can tell, the OP is referring to Billgannett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (SaintAviator fails to mention that they started the SPI). G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Re the links I provided. I put them there because on the left hand pane are the sections Billgannett wrote showing uncivility. In the instructions here it said put links in. You can also see them of course by his contributions. Yes I did start the SPI, thats obvious once you click on it. He was notified of the SPI by email, he mentions it. He was also notified at the time of the SPI here [122] on his sock 1 talk page. His first editing account. I also notified him of this page on sock 2 talk page which was the account he started to use most. SaintAviator talk 22:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've replied at the SPI. No checkuser is needed, as the content of the edits makes it clear that the accounts are used by the same person, unless I've completely misunderstood them. I've informed the new and confused user, on both their talkpages, that they mustn't use more than one account and have asked them to pick one account and stick with it. I've also told them that the personal attacks here are inappropriate — I actually find those more worrying than the sockpuppetry, which seems to stem from innocent confusion. When/if I get a response from them, I'll leave the chosen account to hopefully find its feet here, and block the other one. Thank you very much for the report, User:SaintAviator. I'll try to keep an eye on Talk:Francis Brabazon, but please let me know if I should miss any further problems with the new user. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
Thank you very much. Yes Im more worried about the personal attacks also, because of the pattern. Lets see how he takes it all. Thanks also for the ongoing support. SaintAviator talk 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC) disrupting[edit] (talk · contribs) has been engaged with Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) on numerous pages related to Hinduism. Eshwar has been adding multiple images and crowding the articles. These images have, for more than one time, been removed by Redtiger and their reasons for removal have been given in edit summaries as well as dedicated talk page discussions (e.g. Talk:Vishnu#Removal_of_images, Talk:Ganesha#Images_Removed). Previously, Eshwar has also reported 3RR against Redtiger which was decided as no violation. The closing admin also noted how Eshwar was forum shopping. (link here). Post failure to maintain his choice of images on pages, they went on to request semi-protection of various pages [123], [124] like Vishnu, Ganesha, Rakshasa, and Kamsa, hoping that would stop Redtiger from removing the unneeded images. Probably after realizing that semi-protection won’t stop Redtiger or other users from reverting him, they probably have now resorted to removal of images from pages which have been previously been edited by Redtiger. (e.g. [125] at Keshi (demon), [126] at Kali Puja, [127] at Ashta Nayika.
On side note, Eshwar seems to not be getting along well with many users looking at various notices on their talk page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.this is the first rule of this page.But i did'nt get any notification.Second thing is user Redtigerxyz removed file on 15 July 2014‎ which is my edit Vishnu.He said reason is rm copyvio.same day it self i said before remove please check copyrights from flickr.he said Checked copyrights from flickr; plz familiar yourself with wikipedia image policies.then 6 July 2014‎ i added file from wiki commons.he removed even that file too.and said rm img crowding.i said again dont remove images.crowd not a proper explanation.please read WP:IUP.he reverted my edits said the image is broken, attributes missing.then continuous unknown ip users edited that page.user redtiger started to say one img enough like so . he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism article plz click here.i informed in his talk page.but he deleted reply from him.after blanking my talk in his he put smily symbol in his talk page Edit summary .plz click here.this is one enough showing how user rediger playing in Wikipedia. and he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism i asked semi-protection for vishnu.but

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

Dunno why they still have the "on their talk page" clause. You anyways got the notification. Just so you don't have complain, will post on your talk page too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See my reply on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive263#Hi_all. All flickr images were copyvio and deleted. I can remove anything from my talk per WP:OWNTALK. But, Eshwar removed my edits on Talk:Vishnu [128] Forum shopping [129] has not ended. While Eshwar accusing people of being from Karnataka and "rm (remember?) Tamil values" [130][131], Eshwar is creating WP:UNDUE to Tamil Nadu portrayals in images. He is flooding articles with Tamil images, only though Tamil representations already exist in the article (e.g. Talk:Vishnu#Removal_of_images, Talk:Ganesha#Images_Removed). He is adding pictures of broken images of the deities, with incomplete iconography and missing attributes (attribute in English scholarly literature is an object held by a Hindu/Jain/Buddhist divinity). At Rakshasa and Kamsa, the problem is not images, but WP:POV and accuracy of facts. The user repeatedly adding Kamsa is a rakshasa, which is inaccurate (he is described as human or asura), without proving it with RS. Redtigerxyz Talk 19:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
user Redtigerxyz saying about Administrators noticeboard,but there user Bbb23 said that I just declined a report filed by against Redtigerxyz. There was only one problem has solved then there is no need anything further to talk.but Redtigerxyz followed after user bbb23.iam not saying he should not continue there.but no need ,because problem solved in Administrators noticeboard. user mr Redtigerxyz saying that images were copyvio and deleted.that is ok .but my question is why wikicommon files also not accepted by you .i mentioned all here in my previous

talk itself.and your saying you can remove anything from your talk per WP:OWNTALK,ok but when?!as perWP:TALK is for only to discuss.if you remove all those then how we your connecting Tamilnadu edit diff which is no need here.user said dont tell like that then i asked sorry for that then the problem of that matter was solved.but i dont know solved matters why you are connecting here .what is your intention really i dont know.but readers can view all.that is my believe.and you are saying i removed all those things from Vishnu article talk page i moved t files in to per WP:IQUEUE fair-use images should not be moved to talk pages.also policy says if enough text then move images to article page .so i did.also WP:TALK says Article talk pages should not be used ty editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.but you used it for your personal view register.what your saying now you said same over there not applicable by policy.And you are saying i am flooding articles with Tamil your fault.In india tamil nadu also part. Hinduism is common all over tamil nadu also applicable.Even Hindu Bakthi movement started from tamilnadu.(Including the two major part like saiva,vaishnava). and spread all over India Later.that is images available then if it is needed then could be present in Hindusium articles .Also Tamil is native indian Language too.Among all native indian Language tamil is very old.Sangam literature of tamil is very Ancient in india.again what user redtiger saying all are personal attack.taking particularly about community or person will comes under personal attack.he said already.he is telling even now the article kamsa and rakshasa he removed all citations which are all before inserted by me.Every one in india one knows mahabharatha and krishna's uncle kamsa was a demon king.but user redtiger removed all from the he is not following talk page rule,he is not follwing image rule.he is doing personal attack by saying community.above all he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism article with out knowing Hinduism and all parts of india .Any way what i mentioned above are all my points to register. admin you have to analyse all from both side and do the needful.Dont forget still we people believe wikipedia is reliable.thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • As I understand the allegations, Eshwar has been repeatedly image-crowding on various pages. When those images have been removed, he has retaliated, particularly against Redtigerxyz by removing images added by Redtigerxyz for no valid reason, and by filing the report at WP:AN3 against Redtigerxyz, even though the report was clearly baseless. In his defense, Eshwar has provided a lot of rhetoric and accusations (some of them barely intelligible) but very few diffs in support of his arguments. Indeed, one diff in particular is false on its face. Here Eshwar shows that Redtigerxyz removed a post of Eshwaar's from Redtigerxyz's talk page. I don't blame him. For one thing, Eshwar says "Please Stop such a activity.few years back you did like that.again you started.Previously you blocked once.remember that.Dont do such things again." Redtigerxyz has a clean block log.
I also noticed that on July 15, Eshwar left identical posts on eight administrator (also mostly if not all arbitrators but I'd have to go look at the arb list to be sure) talk pages (see here). In each post, Eshwar complained of Redtigerxyz's conduct (see, e.g., here). Newyorkbrad, always the gentleman, replied (I know that at least some of the others did not bother), "I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about the topics the two of you are editing to be of much help here." (see here).
At this point, my view is that Eshwar is being tendentious in his editing and disruptive to the project. My inclination is to block him for his conduct, but I'll await further comments for the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you regarding the block and note in regret I've seen articles in Indian English-language journals I found no more intelligible, so it isn't unique to this editor. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Same here. Images were removed under edit summary "distributing imgs in sections" (images were not distributed but removed) from articles in User:Redtigerxyz/DYK. [150][151][152]. All images from [153] and [154], without any effort to accommodate the images. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23,i already explain all things in my previous explantion.But yes i have to explain further.My kind request is please dont say i am making image crowding.see i adding images at articles like less image articles and no image articles too.likeHinduism in Afghanistan,Hinduism in Pakistan,Hinduism in Sri Lanka,Hinduism in China,Hinduism in Bangladesh.Even in that i got a chance to add a lead img file too. ,Please dont say iam doing img is really hurts me lot.And dont say i am doing against for some other user.Really i am not doing that.i dont want to do that.which is no need at healthy wiki Environment.But again i am saying your words wounds me lot.
Hi Dharmadhyaksha, said complaint about indic script removal.Also you said stalking.but it has Redirected to WP:HARASS.Acccording to wiki WP:OUTINGit saying (Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia).but i believe i didnt do anything like that.just i removed indic script where i found as per wiki policy.also i believe i didt hurt you.
user redtiger i clearly mentioned in the relevent articles Edit summary regarding my edit contribution.but here i have a duty to point out.the link you mentioned the article looks before my edit diff1.After my edit user here saying is really i want to point out one thing that is WP:CIVIL.According to this editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.accoding to WP:CIVILWP:NICE it says Even if you're hurt, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm..I believe i given all my explantion here.again i am telling admin could consider all,and analyse all things said by all users here.And do the needful.because you are familiar than us with wiki polices.i point out already wikipedia is reliable.thank you.Eshwar.omTalk tome 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment had edit war with Abecedare on Shiva. I don't know why he adds Wikipedia:Undue stuff. He should create new article but he wouldn't go for it. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What WP:CIVIL and WP:personal attack are you talking about, Eshwar? Please do not list policies for the sake of it, prove the others didn't follow them. This is how you should give examples with diff. [155][156] You attacked User:LeoFrank, User:Sitush and me in Tamil Nadu edit summary (an article which I have not edited for a long time, that is "you WP:HARASSing Redtigerxyz" example; forget reverting you on that article) and falsely "accused" us of being Karnataka. "user sitush basically from Karnataka .his target is remove tamil based values", "users like sitush,Leo Frank,Redtigerxyz and other two are all basically frm karnataka.they do rm tamil values"; only LeoFrank is from Karnataka, Sitush is possibly not even from India I suppose and I have declared on my user page that I am from Maharashtra. A clear violation of WP:AGF of accusing LeoFrank of being anti-Tamil values, just because he is from Karnataka. Also, All 8 images removed with "no enough text" rationale let's assume that Ashta Nayika had image crowding with 8 images, why didn't you remove alternate images (4 images). Please explain how you could not find space for a single image on an article which is 6KB readable prose.Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Redtigerxyz,Please understand,I dont have any intention to wound any body.what you mentioned regarding tamilnadu article for that i already asked sorry WP:SORRY.But your reopening that matter here again.I dont want to discuss about that.But yes your freedom to point out.but it has need to reopen.that is my belief.And it is my personal opinion too .yes according to Ashta Nayika article.i did't say image crowing.i said no enough text for that images .so i moved that into talk page of the article based on wiki image policy.user CutestPenguin also mentioned that same in Nayika article's talk page .he said, Redtigerxyz: Both of you are right, I think we should find add more contents to use those removed images. What you think ?. for that you replied it is essential that we have at least 1 depiction of each nayika; as their iconography can be conveyed better by a depiction. They are important motifs in Indian art. I do not have additional content to add to them

.then user CutestPenguin said to you If possible have visit at National Museum, New Delhi there you can have lots of information about this.Talk:Ashta Nayika..Why i am mentioning Talk page of Ashta Nayika because you know the reasons for only accepted you dont have additional content to add to them.but here your putting question on me.i dont know friend Why ?!anyway i answered .yes i have a duty too. i did that.thank you .Eshwar.omTalk tome 21:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I've blocked Eshwar for one week (the duration generously does not take into account his previous blocks). I was hoping he would show some insight into his behavior, but his long passive-aggressive screeds above are simply a continuation of his earlier comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

After edits like these [157], [158], [159], [160], [161] and several final warnings [162], [163], [164] Joshuaj102003 is still injecting personal analysis into articles. [165], [166] Inventive but not wanted here. Request block until editor states they understand and will abide by WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. --NeilN talk to me 13:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

The talk page discussion was trending towards putting it in the History section rather than the lede. Yet, the edit warring is either insisting it is in the lede, or deleted entirely. This is a content dispute and is not ANI worthy; the talk page, while contentious, will sort it out. If not use WP:DR. Rgrds. -- (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure you got a good read of the talk page. There were some concerns about the neutrality of the naming section. Some editors and I reworked it and most people were happy with it judging from the silence. Phil had earlier said that he wasn't "entirely convinced" it needed to be in the lede, but besides that, Eodcarl is the only one pushing this issue. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
But what can an admin do that cannot be handled via WP:DR? If an admin wants to, they can act as a WP:3O or they can respond as if this were WP:DRN, but my point is I read the talk page and you don't need an admin you need WP:DR. Eodcarl has participated in the talk page but discussion petered out in December; he then piped up in February to no response. Use WP:BRD not BRRRANI. Rgrds. -- (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) I don't see a clear enough consensus such that Eodcarl's reverts should be classified as "against consensus" (and even if so, that administrator intervention would be needed). Mark, you're edit warring as much as anybody else there. Temporary page protection might be appropriate for this case to force discussion, but proper dispute resolution, as 64' above suggests, would be better still. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I dealt with the naming issue back in December by adding cites mentioning the original name and how long it was in use, then disengaged further because I thought the changes had been explained and accepted and also since I'm not from Missouri. Since a certain point all of Edocarl's edits have been nearly devoted to this one issue. I'm not going to engage further but I encourage both parties to find an equal way to represent each other; as I said in the talk in December, I've brought good cites and anyone is free to blend them appropriately in. Nate (chatter) 02:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I get a bad feeling about the photo as far as copyright is concerned. It looks like there's been some photoshopping (solid color, unnatural sky; certain aspects unnaturally bright); it looks like a promotional photo, and the exif makes it look like it's a photo that was for web publication. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I can replace it. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed4u circumventing one week block[edit]

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

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

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

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

Looks clear enough to me. I will extend the block of the IP and Fixed4u. Alltimeintheworld is indef blocked. If he continues to make new accounts, then all of his accounts will be indef blocked. 14:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Considering how easy it seems to be for this person to jump IPs and create new names you will probably be playing whack a mole for a while. Helpsome (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Report any other accounts here and they should be dealt with quickly. If he continues to evade the block by using multiple accounts, then his main account should be blocked indefinitely. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 14:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, in the future, please go to WP:SPI to report socks. It has a much more streamlined interface for doing so. -- King of ♠ 06:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, SPI is a waste of time. Checkusers won't do any more than they feel like doing, which is typically nothing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I've all but stopped using it. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"Checkusers won't do any more than they feel like doing" -- darn right. Nor will any of the volunteers on this project. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bugs: You're a smart guy, so let me ask you: if we accept, for the sake of argument, that CheckUsers are less than energetic and diligent in their activities (which I generally have not found to be the case), do you really think that the best way to get them to do better is making those kinds of statements on the noticeboards, which you've done several times lately? It might perhaps make you feel better, but it seems to me unlikely to have anything but an adverse effect on CU morale, which will only makes things worse. I'd suggest that you give some thought to changing your strategy. BMK (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's irksome when an admin tries to palm off potential action to someone else. Whoever they're advising to file an SPI needs to be aware that an SPI has a good chance of going nowhere. Maybe those low-morale CU's you're talking about should concern themselves with user morale. I've been hassled by a troll for five years, and no amount of SPI's have resulted in doing anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for administrative action (block) against User:Ronz[edit]

Based on recent disruptive behavior at the recently closed (as Keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 and at both List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 & Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 2014, I unfortunately feel that administrative action is necessary against User:Ronz. Several editors are disturbed by the actions of Ronz both at that AfD and in the above article itself recently. I've very rarely seen the kind of behavior exhibited by Ronz on Wikipedia in my 6 years or so as an editor. I'd like to note that I am not personally a fan of Playboy-related content, and I have not previously heavily edited Playboy-related articles on Wikipedia before recently (as a result of the above-mentioned AfD). This complaint is not about article's about Ronz's disruptive behavior.

Consensus in the above-mentioned AfD developed that Ronz's initial BLP-concern-based nomination had no merit, but that unfortunately did not deter Ronz from repeatedly, intentionally & disruptively blanking the list that was in question (at the above AfD) in order to try & "win" that nomination. See: blanking of sourced article content, during the course of the AfD, at 12:25 on July 21, 2014, blanking of sourced article content, during the AfD, at 15:06 on July 21, 2014, blanking of more sourced article content, during the AfD, at 12:45 on July 22, 2014, and blanking of more sourced article content, during the AfD, at 17:20 on July 22, 2014. Even after the recent conclusion of the above-mentioned AfD, Ronz has attempted to continue to assert non-existent (in the opinion of the community) BLP concerns by re-inserting a tag, at 10:39 on July 23, 2014, that was initially removed by the same editor that recently closed the above-mentioned AfD. This kind of editing warring behavior is unacceptable. I personally have a strict policy against edit warring...I don't engage in it at all.

Ronz's behavior both at the above-mentioned AfD and on the article's talk page has been extremely disruptive...with repeated periods of IDHT, VAGUEWAVE, and BATTLEGROUND behavior. Attempts by several editors to engage Ronz over their "concerns" have been futile, and numerous warnings to Ronz about their behavior (including several at an involved administrator's talk page) have gone unheeded by Ronz.

Ronz has apparently been blocked twice before...once for apparently edit warring in 2007 and once for "Disruptive editing including battleground attitude & ignoring feedback" in 2012. Ronz was also cited for editing warring over tags in 2011, and there apparently have been problems with Ronz's use of bogus "BLP concerns" before in 2010. Taking into account Ronz's recent and past similar patterns of disruptive behavior, I must ask here that Ronz be blocked for a period of a minimum of several weeks (if not longer). I'd like to leave the further specifics of a block proposal (and the ultimate decision on whether to impose one) to this body's collective judgment here. Thank you in advance. Guy1890 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, but not surprised by this.

@Postdlf: posted a request on my Talk page to look into this. I spent a couple of hours while at work looking over what Ronz had been doing & the details of this dispute, & came to the conclusion that while Ronz had acted aggressively in this dispute his actions were done in good faith. So I felt the best solution in this dispute was to suggest to Ronz to break off trying to edit this article & move on. I posted this on Ronz' talk page a couple of hours ago; he responded that he's going to stay away from the article for a month, at least. So unless Ronz breaks his word, there's nothing to be done here.

I didn't think everyone would be happy about this -- I was the Admin who suggested Ronz be blocked indefinitely for his behavior 2 years ago, so I'm glad he looked past that to accept my advice -- but the whole idea is to defuse conflicts & retain valuable contributors, not to ban everyone & let God the ArbCom sort 'em out. -- llywrch (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, users attempting to blank an article while that same article is at an AfD (that they themselves initiated in the first place) are not "good faith" edits. There's established precedent here at AN/I for blocking users that engage in that kind of behavior over & over again, despite warnings to the contrary.
Seriously, I was born on a Monday, but it wasn't this past Monday my friends. Ronz's behavior since the filing of this AN/I complaint is pretty much textbook avoidance behavior. Lay low until the heat dies down, and then go right back to editing as before. Ronz has been given several chances in the past, and I feel strongly that it's time to punish his recent (and really longstanding behavior since at least 2010) disruptive behavior more strongly. Guy1890 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Ronz goes over the edge every now and then, but I think Llywrch's solution is best for now, and I move to close this thread. Wikipedia doesn't really do punishments, nor is that the reason we are here. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No action needed. What some call "article blanking", others might regard as "fluff removing". Yes, Ronz was a bit aggressive, but it looks like it's over, and people can resume adding bust measurements. Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
llywrch's analysis is spot on; Guy1890's call for a lengthy punitive block over a settled dispute which all other editors appear to agree was based in good faith disagreements has no grounding whatsoever in policy. It may well be time, however, to examine Guy1890's disruptive pattern of personalizing deletion disputes, as here, and tendentiously trivializing legitimate BLP concerns, especially with regard to the erotica industry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Out of process RfC running in parallel with an AfD[edit]

NAC:RFC closed with consent of originator - AFD in progress Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

At Talk:Shuja'iyya_Incident_(2014)#Is_this_subject_notable. I hold no animus towards User:Jersey92, but he's created a bit of a mess should the WP:AfD and the WP:RfC end up with different conclusions, and I would suggest that a speedy close of the RfC is in order so editors know to voice their opinions in the most correct place. -- Kendrick7talk 02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree - An RFC is the wrong way to determine whether a battle with its own article should be deleted, because AFD is the standard process. Close the RFC as overlapping with the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and boldly non-admin closed the RFC with a note encouraging participants to contribute to the AFD instead. It serves nobody to have both discussions running simultaneously. Stlwart111 02:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I originally created the RFC and someone then nominated for AfD. I agree - the RFC should be closed. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Another sock of a certain user. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by PhilKnight. Mike VTalk 03:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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


Move along, folks. (non-admin closure) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 16:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Could someone please have a look at and stop them? they are doing random transport vandalism almost faster than I can revert. It started with them removing all references to Euston tube (still there last time I looked) but seems to have broadened. I have tried to reason with them in case they have a serious point and are trying to accomplish something real, but they are not listening. Can someone please stop them? Thanks DBaK (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Phil Knight, thank you. DBaK (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

A bot just decided that Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite[edit]

The bot decided nothing. Someone will close the discussion at some point, but (as Doc said) there is nothing to see here and it's nothing approaching the level of an AN/I matter. BencherliteTalk 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Can we please get an adult over at Category_talk:Antisemitism#RFC_on_purging_individuals_and_groups? -- Kendrick7talk 07:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There's already an open RfC on this content dispute, which all "adults" are invited to participate in. Nothing to see here as far as AN/I is concerned, really. Doc talk 07:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Persistently mass-nominating templates for deletion during discussion[edit]


The Banner (talk · contribs) has been nominating endless aircraft templates for deletion; here, here and here at least. They have been asked to stop while the matter is discussed, primarily here on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page, and specifically warned here about their behaviour. Now the nominations have restarted - see diff. This is creating a mass of work for those involved, while the Project discussion remains ongoing. This editor is clearly not prepared to wait for consensus. Can someone take a look and review their behaviour? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've complained once before about this sort of behavior with redirect nominations, though apparently my complaint wasn't correct in some way. While I've had positive interactions with The Banner in the time since, my belief is that this sort of mass-nomination behavior is disruptive. I sort of look at is as an extension of the rulemaking versus adjudication distinction in American administrative law: think of XfD as an adjudicative process (good for small numbers of items, and not generally binding on future decisions), while a RfC is a type of rulemaking (good for making general rules that can be applied over and over without much argument).
I believe there are more than enough templates at issue here that it's inappropriate to handle them through piecemeal adjudication (i.e., TfD). Keep in mind that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive, and if a significant mismatch between the codified policy and the actual practice appears, the answer is to first reevaluate the policy to see if it still reflects community consensus. In this case, I would argue that there are more than enough "violating" templates from more than enough sources to make this an inappropriate matter for resolution via XfD.
Yes, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... but that same argument cuts against creating dozens of individual XfDs claiming some basis in practice... when each of those XfD subjects is a counter-example to the practice. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to highlight The Banner's approach to collaborative editing, here is a statement of their personal vendetta against another editor. When they post their own defence, the Banner then has the nerve to accuse them of lacking good faith, see this post to their talk page. This issue is not really about how to nominate, but how to behave during this, or any other, discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen the banging at the door heres User talk:The Banner/Archives/2014/July where I told Ahunt multiple times that it is not the case of convincing me or his peers, but that he has to convince the administrators active at TfD. That was an argument no one wanted to accept. The sheer fact that I accepted a barnstar for the nominations, was followed by a backlash. Referring to the revenge aspect: almost from the beginning Ahunt was accusing me of doing bad faith nominations. I have asked him multiple times to stop with those false accusations, as it is not true (I still believe the WP:NENAN-nominations are valid). He went on and on so at one time I make the (not so clever) remark that I would nominate the templates of an extra letter as long as he did not stop with the false accusation. He did not stop, so I nominated. The Banner talk 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
See what I mean? Two fingers up to ArbCom, we know it's not so clever, but let's just spite another editor anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice that the aggressive defence is ending up on AN/I. A beautiful case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. In general, the aircraft boys refuse to believe my argument dat WP:NENAN is a valid argument, although it is an essay. See a few links:
  1. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 8
  2. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 2
  3. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 4
  4. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 13
  5. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 3
  6. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26
And then, off course, you have the editing guideline WP:REDNOT with is argument: Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, (...).
The very reason to nominate just a few templates a day is to give Ahunt, and the rest of his Wikiproject, a fighting change to write the articles needed to comply with the threshold of five valid blue links. Flooding TfD with long lists of articles failng WP:NENAN is also possible but that is in my eyes unpolite, as it reduces the time/chance to write the needed articles. The Banner talk 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact, there are 478 pages on TfD where WP:NENAN is mentioned/used as argument. The Banner talk 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
So after more than 450 times of usage, it is suddenly not a valid argument? The Banner talk 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Mass nominations of this type have been strongly discouraged by ArbCom as fait accompli. They've asked you to take this to discussion, not deletion, you should be discussing those there. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The Project did. The consensus has so far been solidly against The Banner - see here. Hence the repeated returns to TfD in a bid to gain a more persuadable audience. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment, the vast majority of the templates closed with the primary reason of "Failing NENAN" were uncontested deletions. A significant subset were "moved" rather than "deleted". --Zfish118 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That is right, quite a few are merged, moved or extented. That is what I mentioned as "rescued". There are just very few templates with less than five relevant links kept. That was usually based on good arguments (IIRC arguments like the likelihood of more links coming in the near future). The Banner talk 20:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is being disingenuous in his invocation of WP:REDNOT although "red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes", "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.", which is the case with these navboxes. He is also being disingenuous when he says that his acceptance of a barnstar for these nominations was followed by a backlash: the backlash is clearly caused by the way he accepts, which very much looks like this is a personal issue for him. Generally, this editor is much too free with accusations that other people are making personal attacks when all that is being done is questioning his reasons for these mass deletion nominations and expressing disagreement.TheLongTone (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping this problem could be resolved simply by the upcoming admin closures of the existing template nominations for deletion, since all have clear consensuses to "keep", which should have sent a clear message that further noms would be a waste of time. But it seems that User:The Banner wished to force the issue here to ANI, as had been discussed by some editors previously here, by his continuing to nominate WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer navigation box templates for deletion against a solid consensus that was established, with his participation, here. User:The Banner has stated here and here that he will not accept any consensus about these nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus regardless. This is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and he has been warned about that previously here. Here and again here he indicates that his motivation for continuing to nominate templates against consensus is one of revenge. He has been warned before not to do this to make a WP:POINT but has continued, adding uncivil edit summaries, such as here and uncivil responses such as here for two examples. At this point it is clear that User:The Banner has become disruptive just to make a point and that means that he is WP:NOTHERE. I would suggest that the the best resolution at this point would be a topic ban of all aviation articles, and specifically a ban on nominating aviation templates for deletion for User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget your long list of accusations of bad faith nominations, for instance on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 16 (3x), Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 17 (4x). And don't forget to tell that your false bad faith accusations were just a part of you protecting your own templates. And in the mean time you just go on with your harassing. Just wait a bit more and see what happens when the administrator starts judging the templates. In the mean time: there is nothing illegal to write extra article or add more relevant links to a template to have those 5 relevant links. The Banner talk 20:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As someone who frequently !votes at TfD, (and one who individually examined and !voted keep or delete on most of the templates in question here,) I don't think either Ahunt or The Banner acted in bad faith. The Banner was only nominating as he believes correct. The way he went about it annoyed me in this situation, but was not bad faith. If he had been approached in a different way, he probably would have worked with the project, at least allowing more time between nominations. Many of us have been notified of XfD nominations or other deletions. Ahunt and others in the project received an intimidating stream of these. I didn't follow user talk pages well enough to know if anyone overreacted, but I haven't seen anything I would call bad faith, (though calling each other bad faith came pretty close.) I hope an RfC would be a good way to settle the dispute. Although NENAN significantly overlaps many other editors' basic requirements for a navbox, there is enough variance that consensus can be hard to reach. —PC-XT+ 04:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner seems to have a flawed understanding of WP:POLICY. The Aviation project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes the use of the template series as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), they are something more than simply navigation templates. There's no violation of WP:CONLIMITED here since the WikiProject Aviation's Consensus (which is a policy) is not contradicted by a community consensus policy or guideline on a wider scale, since WP:NENAN is merely an essay. Mojoworker (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just a rude guy who treats every template, regardless of local hobbies, exactly the same. Just like articles are judged on their own merits, I judge templates on their own merits. The Banner talk 09:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


The Banner clearly has no intention of listening to consensus. Is there any good reason why he should not be banned from nominating any further templates for deletion under pain of an indefinite block? Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to listen to consensus. That means, a wiki-wide consensus not a local one invented to protect the interests of a very limited group of people. Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. The Banner talk 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A limited group we may be, but we are trusted by the community. This is because we work together, discuss things and have the grace to accept when consensus is against our particular point of view. We also have the ability to prevent you from editing. Let me be quite clear, the only reason I've not topic banned you or blocked you from editing indefinitely is that I'm involved insofar as I commented at the Wikiproject discussion. I dare say that if I were to block you, there wouldn't be a rush to reverse the block. It's getting late here in the UK, so I'm minded to leave this open overnight, unless sufficient consensus is gained for action to be taken or not, as the case may be. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not necessary. Start a RfC to resolve the underlying policy question, list it at T:CENT. If Banner starts more TfDs while that RfC is pending, then you can talk ban. But I suspect Banner will be reasonable enough to allow that RfC to run. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This emphasis on RfC is a little invidious. The WP:RFC section on Before starting the Request for comment process states, "If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject." All aircraft articles have by their nature a degree of technicality and complexity, while uniform presentation across articles is also important. At risk of repetition (link given twice already), we had that Project discussion and the result was total community consensus against The Banner. Their plea for an RfC and debasing remarks about the project look suspiciously like an attempt to wiggle round that. Also, judging by remarks made above, ArbCom et. al. have cut little ice with this user in the past, why should we expect sudden compliance with an RfC now? A ban would at least get across the reality of the message. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • A list of airplanes in a navigation templates is not difficult to create. The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      Don't be silly. These templates serve to orchestrate the presentation of the technical and sometimes complex articles they appear in. From the viewpoint of RFC, they are effectively part of the article structure and need to be discussed in that context. Recall that favourite essay of yours, where it says that in such circumstances, a few simpler members of a much wider set are acceptable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's nothing wrong with nomination templates for deletion, yes nomination a lot of them at the same time could be considered a disruptive act, but nothing presented here shows that to be true in this case. Kosh Vorlon    10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - the main disruptive act is that we have a consensus here not to do that, which he participated in, but didn't like the outcome of and is ignoring. Predominantly the issue here is one of editing against consensus to make a WP:POINT. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment SOunds like a localconsensus issue. Localconsensus would have bearing , as far as I know , on the page being worked on, as long as it didn't conflict with Wikipedia policies at large. There's no policy on submitting anything for deletion, unless, of course, it's disruptive, which again , hasn't been shown to be the case. Kosh Vorlon    16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? You are happy for anyone to persistently mass-nominate templates for deletion during discussion, are you? Even a bunch of templates you might happen to be discussing at the time on the relevant Project talk page? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • And in fact you keep ignoring the fact that I am stating that you try to create a consensus on the wrong venue The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Since he has shown he will not accept consensus and is being intentionally disruptive, I support a ban from nominating any further templates for The Banner. I don't see the point of an RfC at this point since it will just duplicate the consensus arrived at here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose I think the templates should be deleted. It would be in line with other TFD results and WP:NENAN has long been considered a valid argument. Also I see this whole ANI thread as an attempt to shut an editor up. Sometimes that might be in need of doing, but in too many cases its just an abuse around here....William 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This ANI is not about trying to shut an editor up: it's about getting him to listen to counter-arguments and accept consensus. The principal counter-arguement is well put below by DieSwartzPunkt, a non-involved editor.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
comment This sideswipe at the ANI nominator is from the very same editor who took a sideswipe at the project in his barnstar award to The Banner for starting their campaign. It is now clear that this campaign has been about circumventing the Project consensus from the word go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but read on: {uninvolved editor} If one starts with AGF, one should assume that, to begin with, the nominations were made in good faith following WP:NENAN. However, it has been repeatedly pointed out that that is not a policy but an essay (i.e. nothing moe than a point of view). However, despite that being pointed out, the nominations continued. As it is just an essay, one should consider the points that the essay is attempting to address with respect to the use to which the template is put. The text makes it clear that the issue with articles is, ".. before you know it, the article suddenly is more template than article". Looking at the affected articles, that does not seem to be the case as the infoboxes are relatively small. Therefore, I would suggest that WP:NENAN is a non arguement in this case. However, as far as I am concerned: WP:AGF left the stage when The Banner made it clear in various talk pages, that most (if not all) of the later nominations were in direct retaliation to the opposition put up to the deletions by (if I have this right) one or more other editors. This cannot be acceptable behaviour. Reviewing The Banner's edit history (always a good idea) shows a past substantially free from many of the editing problems seen at these pages, suggesting that a block may be excessive. My recommendation would be that The Banner should accept that the consensus is largely against him and withdraw all the nominations. If he is not prepared to do that, then a topic ban 'broadly interpreted' would be the best solution for the project. If the topic ban is ignored: then go ahead and block. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Please, take a look at the edits of Ahunt too who accused me multiple times of bad faith nomination and is still continuing his campaign of discrediting me.
    • Secondly, the NENAN-agument was a valid argument for a couple of hundred times. Just the fact that one Wikiproject has a problem with it, does not my my nominations invalid. They are out there and soon an administrator will judge them. And soon, there will be an RfC to see if WP:NENAN is in the future a valid reason for nomination. I will honour the outcome from that RfC. The Banner talk 14:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) And I will refrain of using the NENAN-argument till the new (RfC)-consenus is reached.
I did review all the contributions involved - it would be impossible to provide an uninvolved viewpoint otherwise. In the first place: it was clear from all those contributions that consensus was against you (though granted, not entirely unanimous). In the second place: you made it clear that your nominations were retaliatory. Both of those factors made subsequent nominations bad faith. I said so above. I am not interested about the history of the WP:NENAN arguments, I am considering this only in the current context which is what the established consensus is addressing. Essays have to be interpreted in the context of the current discussion - it actually says so within the text. I do not accept that others are discrediting you, when you continue to act outside of consensus. This is not your encyclopedia any more than it is mine. This is a comminity project and can only work with co-operation. The only question in my mind is: 'why are you persuing this?' - given that you do not have a history of tendentious editing.
I fail to see why an RfC is required when consensus is already against you. This is merely trying to game the system by trying to get a larger consensus because you do not like the outcome of the current one. What would you propose if such an RfC went against you - a world wide referendum?
A more important question is: 'why does this bother you so much?'. Why can't you just accept the position as it is and move on to editing something more acceptable and worthwhile? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Because the discussion was not on a neutral venue and that specific local consensus was en is clearly intended to protect the own project and its templates. It is not a consensus set up to match the best interest of Wikipedia, something a RfC will most likely do. The Banner talk 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So if you really believed the project was so rotten and the wider community would overturn its consensus at RfC, why didn't you just take it to RfC yourself? Why start a vendetta? That was the behaviour that got you dragged here. And why should we believe your pleadings for an RfC are not motivated by that same vendetta? Wikipedia is a big playground, why not just move on and recover your composure. That's why I like this proposal, it buys you that space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
User:The Banner, it is local consensus, but it is indeed consensus. What part of WP:CONLIMITED do you think applies here. Quoting from there: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." What policy or guideline do you think trumps the consensus of the WikiProject in this situation? Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – As I said above, The Banner appears to have a flawed understanding of WP:CONLIMITED. He needs to read and understand WP:POLICY before taking anything else to TfD. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • My friend, that is why I suggested to start a RfC. Just as WP:CONLIMITED says: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. Seeing the few hundred times that WP:NENAN was used on TfD, there was at least some consensus that it was a valid argument. TfD is the wider scale, so a RfC is the way to go to get the wider scale consensus. The Banner talk 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Might the solution be to replace the typical begging-for-money banners with one directed to a referendum page? Then, anyone connecting to Wikipedia could post an opinion. Hard to get a much wider "community" than that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2: RfC[edit]

As nobody started anything: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Request for Comment: WP:NENAN.

And yes, I know not everybody is happy with this and I will get some flak and maybe a ban, but it has to be done.

Yours sincerely, The Banner talk 22:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for page move, article deletion and warning to user[edit]

The article of Iraklis Thessaloniki F.C. was moved to Iraklis 1908 F.C. and then to Iraklis 1908 FC by Alfaweiss without any prior discussion. The move is completely absurd since 1908 is not a part of the club's name. He has also made several moves of the AEL 1964 FC article, with no prior discussion whatsoever. Also the same user created an article about Spyros Papathanasakis without providing any references. Apart from this it's not clear to me why this man reaches WP:N for people. The same user seems to appear almost at the same time with IP, an IP that adds unreferenced material (here, here and [167]. I have already added some references to Sebastián Bartolini's article, an article that the aforementioned user and IP added unreferenced material (alleged transfer to Iraklis). I request the article of Iraklis 1908 FC to be moved to its prior name Iraklis Thessaloniki F.C., PAE AEL FC to be moved to AEL 1964 FC, Spyros Papathanasakis to be deleted and to warn user Alfaweiss for his actions.Hansi667 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You told the editor you would be reporting them but you didn't tell them where you would be reporting them. That's not optional. I have now done so. --NellieBly (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Mea culpa. It won't happen again. Hansi667 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
IP has changed the club name to Iraklis 1908 FC in the lead of the article. It's pretty obvious that this IP is the one that Alfaweiss uses, since both him/her and the aforementioned IP appeared on 19 July 2014 and they also edit articles about football in Grece, almost exclusively.Hansi667 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Move warring by Mjharrison[edit]

Mjharrison (talk · contribs) has been move warring over the page Fringe (hairstyle). For some background, a series of move requests earlier this year determined the proper title for the article is Bangs (hair). But the user in question has now moved the page twice in the past two weeks without discussion. At a minimum, the page ought to be moved back and move protected to stop this nuisance. Calidum Talk To Me 17:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Block - There has been enough discussion on the talk page that he knows that he is moving against consensus, and he is sufficiently determined to make the move that he is using an ugly hack. Although move-protect will help, his persistence is such that he seems likely to do something else if he isn't blocked, such as a copy-and-paste move. Recommend a block at least to get his attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've moved the article back and move protected it for six months. Neutral on what action should be taken against the user. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Long term disruptive editing by SergiSmiler[edit]

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

User:SergiSmiler has a long-term pattern of disruptive editing specifically on Miley Cyrus-related articles. The user has received 22 explicit warnings since June 2013, all for the same issues of: disruptive editing in general, addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content and edit warring. He has been blocked 4 times for the same reasons. He has also made 5 requests for unblock (4 of them denied), every time claiming that he is editing in good faith. The user's writing demonstrates he has very limited skills in English, which may be why he doesn't understand Wikipedia's policies. He has shown multiple times that he has no intention of following the wiki guidelines, due to his firm belief that what he is doing is right. He just made another disruptive edit past final warning, so I initially posted to WP:AIV, but an admin there suggested I take the matter here, due to the user's long-term disruptive editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Flows (talkcontribs)

Hi, I'm SergiSmiler, I can only say the following: All these problems spoken, have occurred in the past, when I was starting to work on Wikipedia, now I have more experience, better understand everything that is said, but I must say that this does not seem right, if you have so many posts is because as a fan of Miley, I want your items to be the most complete! I just want to help, but sometimes, being so heavy she gave me bad results.
Please do not have in mind what is said, actually you is not so serious, gradually my edits have improved, and now accept more and better your opinions, and my strong character, by which I have been blocked on occasion , I'm controlling better. Thanks, I hope you know put in my place.--SergiSmiler (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Mikemikev on Talk:Franz Boas[edit]

Banned Mikemikev (talk · contribs) is trolling Talk:Franz Boas again. Given his known connections to political extremist groups, and his known history of IRL harassment, I found this edit summary to be rather problematic. could we get some kind of range block on his IP to avoid having to deal with this on a daily basis? And maybe a semi protection on the talkpage and other talkpages he frequents such as Talk:Race and genetics?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Beyond the above-mentioned, it's extremely likely that this IP is also Mikemikev. (Read: certain. IP-starting-with-222 is reacting to a reply made to aforementioned IP-starting-with-210 on the talkpage of Race and genetics—and not even pretending to be a different person, for that matter) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

some sort of mediawiki error is happening[edit]

Compare these two diffs, both which are doing mass replacements. (Or there is a very unsubtle sock)

This appears to be a known issue, but this appears to have been "resolved" quite some time go

Any way to escalate this to someone? If this isn't socking (which based on the bug report seems likely) then this is probably happening all over the wiki currently. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:VPT? the panda ₯’ 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User recreating an article[edit]

Vanste (talk · contribs) keeps trying to create his own list of animal genera. The list has been speedy deleted 3 times under the name List of Animal Genera and 2 more times under the name List of animal genera (by van waters). He was temp blocked with final warning before being blocked indefinitely for recreating the article. Now he just created LIst of van's animal genera with more or less the same content. The user seems unable to understand why this is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. 2Flows (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I get the feeling he really thinks he is doing something good, so while I don't have time before I leave, I recommend someone just have an actual discussion and determine competence and such. It isn't vandalism, but it doesn't belong. The two redlinks you show are 3 weeks old, so I don't think WP:salt is the answer, just a real discussion, which doesn't take an admin. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: (or any admin really): See newly created LIst of Van J. Waters animal genera. Rgrds. -- (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Ban for Vanste[edit]

He is not here to build the encyclopedia. There are two intentions, but it doesn't matter which is his intent. Either he thinks that he is doing something useful, in which case he is incompetent, or his edits are vandalism, probably blatant hoaxes. A real list of animal genera is not feasible anyway, because there are tens of thousands of them. Salting won't help, since he keeps changing the name. He has already been given a final warning that he is likely to be indeffed, so I propose that that be formalized with a Site Ban.

Nah, a regular ol' indef will work. The article was supposed to be a list of all animals he's seen, and it included one extinct genus. I suspect this is either a youngster or an individual who doesn't fit in, so just block and move on. Rgrds. -- (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the editor's talk page, and despite all the posts there he/she has never responded, never posted to any talk page. So I doubt that a real discussion is possible so indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. An agreement to engage in discussion in the future if there are problems and not to create any more similar articles can get get him/her unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose wikipedia has too many nasty people. This creates hate and vandalism. A ban is like a life sentence. No, there should always be discussion and the admin must never be harsh or nasty. Then blocks for a limited period of a few months should be considered. Wikipedia is too keen on killing people for life.Stephanie Bowman (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
In what respect is a block from editing for an indefinite time period like killing someone? The block can be lifted at any time - the dead person cannot be brought back to life. This is a private website, not life, and the copmparison you're making is utterly absurd. BMK (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose blocking the above user. It's already blocked. Blocking a user creates acrimony for the project in general. The contribution list of this user doesn't show any intention to damage per se just a mere ignorance. The reasons given above do not justify an indefinite block. --PeterCRames (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Your opininion is that creating hoaxes or incompetent articles doesn't damage the reputation and functionality of an encyclopedia? BMK (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
So we have two editors, with 185 and 42 edits, respectively, coming more-or-less straight to this board to plead someone's case -- and the latter, only a week old, has already done so twice (see below). This looks. shall we say, suspicious. --Calton | Talk 04:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Calton avoid personal attacks please. "So we have two editors, with 185 and 42 edits, respectively" no minimum edit count is prescribed as the eligibility criteria. "coming more-or-less straight to this board" Well, I couldn't find an insinuating course. "to plead someone's case" - I'm an uninvolved editor, my opinion may be useful to the admin. "and the latter, only a week old, has already done so twice (see below)" - I'll do more. Just voicing my opinion. If admin asks me not to, I'll stop. "This looks. shall we say, suspicious." You can say whatever you want. You have the right to speech. --PeterCRames (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Calton avoid personal attacks please. Since I have made no personal attacks whatsoever, your fallacious-and-yet-somehow-condescending advice will receive the consideration it deserves. Which is, of course, none whatsoever.
Also, the non-denial denial technique of deflection isn't as clever as you have been no doubt lead to believe. In fact, it prompts the question, "What was your previous account on Wikipedia?" --Calton | Talk 16:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"Support indefinite, at least until some sort of explanation is forthcoming. --Calton | Talk 04:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • We do not leap to a site ban in a minor case like this. Where is the evidence for a site ban? The extensive history of abuse? This proposal should be shelved. Doc talk 09:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Holy cow, I've been and still tied up with less than fun real world stuff, but NO we do not site ban someone for this, Robert. You really need to pull back on the ban trigger. We shouldn't be banning someone unless they have over a year or two of serious abuse that is so bas (almost always including socking), there is no possible hope and the ban is needed for expedited handling of their diffs. CIR or basic stuff like this, no way whatsoever. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Point made. Sometimes incompetent 13-year-olds become marginally competent 14-year-olds. Point made. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, hogwash, indefinite blocks to get the attention of editors refusing to respond to (very real) concerns of disurption and/or to stop the disruption is done ALL THE TIME. Remember "indefinite =/= infinite", which gets invoked all the time? --Calton | Talk 16:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


User's behavior is somewhat problematic. They've been asked twice to avoid submitting unsourced content, then they were asked twice to not submit copyrighted content in the form of TV episode loglines. The two times I warned the user about the copyvio, I added specific instructions on acceptable ways to incorporate the copyrighted content. The user has not replied to any notices and they submitted more copypasta here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have written the user a personal note and will watch-list the season 9 article. Please let me know if there's further copy vio from this user and I will block them. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Dianaa - Much obliged, thank you. I saw the {{copyvio plot}} template on the talk page. Is there any value to adding that at the top of the edit page? For example I know if you click edit at List of M.I. High episodes that same warning appears at the top of the page. This is not something a non-admin can perform, else I'd do it meself. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a good idea; I will add it there as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism in an article about a book about antisemitism (User:Sayerslle)[edit]

Content dispute that does not belong here, try WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) insolently treats sources and invades private spaces of other users to no end. Now, the title of this section could be misleading a little nevertheless I chose it to emphasize the topic this editorial conflict arose of is antisemitism revolving around the author Eric Blair (George Orwell). Let me also add that this is nothing of a personal affair, just a way to resolve a generic conflict that could go way past 3RR and possibly even for years and contributing literally nothing of value to Wikipedia. Why and for what? Down and Out in Paris and London is a book that has an ambivalent literal structure and is neither fiction nor "non-fiction" but since 2006 the article had it listed under "not fiction." Wikipedia is no arbiter, its only job is to copy facts but the userbase here tends to overstep their boundaries and sometimes overplay or underplay given facts thus shaping the common perception any way they want or in this case twisting it completely. It's not important if it is a work of fiction or is it up to us to decide that but the common consensus should be "non-fiction novel" as Blair (George Orwell) in relations to his own book "Down and Out in Paris & London" refers to it as a novel yet the user in question still defends this book as "non-fiction" and continues, without any explanation, to revert every contribution I make there. I was erroneous about lumping Down and Out in Paris & London under category "Works about antisemitism" but I shortly removed it for how inaccurate that was. Though, "Antisemitic publications" or "Antisemitism in literature" are more than spot on albeit debatable as the antisemitism is not central to the the work just the overall tone of the book's author is troubling and unsettling but I found a more general category that is more sufficient and neutral so I used it in my third edition. He reverted it as he did it with all of my edits while undervaluing the context here while reducing himself to juicy ad hominem in a "you" theme scattering it around my talk page and the article a dozen times. Now instead of attempting to solve the issue the user in question continues bickering on my own user page and harassing me while delivering zero explanation on every aspect of the issue but the content contra a dozen of references I provided for the Article he a) refuses to acknowledge b) diminishes and dismisses their value altogether. This is absolutely unacceptable behavior that he should be reprimanded for and I find user's way of dismissing evidence supporting antisemitic tone of the book or hiding it in the "reviews" section of the article then opening my user page to provide his own sucky arguments which are anything but reliable very troubling. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.", WP:TLDR, this is a wall of text. What do you want done? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not that long. I read it, and it involves a content dispute, so this report should be closed. ItsAlwaysLupus, you need to use the talk page and file an article RFC to generate more input. This is the wrong noticeboard. You could try WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN, but there is nothing to be done here. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Martin S. McFly[edit]

NAC: Spammer blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Not sure where to report this, but this editor (Martin S. McFly) is spamming youtube links on user talk pages. Frietjes (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And those links match ones used by a serial vandal I've run into before. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. Monty845 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone pull talk-page access, he's adding fan videos to his own talk page in his signature. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have done so, and also removed email access. If he wants to use the email feature, he can do so with his original account. I also declined his unblock request whilst I was there. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

He's at it again, as Dos ares num. I've notified the blocking admin. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help solve this gentle dispute and disagreement on deletion of the Article Future Group[edit]

Relisted by The Panda. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi , as you can see here , me and Msnicki have tried and failed to come up to a conclusion regarding deletion of the article . Msnicki feels this article is self published , not notable and ought to be deleted , all of which i politely yet firmly disagree . As much as i can view its revision history (i am not admin to see all of it), this article seems to be created/moved by a trusted user . I happen to came across this AFD and , knowing the familiarity of the company here in India, i decided to save it.(lets just say, you cannot go past 10 miles in any major city in India without coming across one of its supermarkets or fashion stores . They are literally all over the place; verify this with a google search , if you may :)). After a thorough R & D, i have added much more contents in it , even stuffing in stock exchange listings of one of its operating companies , but the user doesn't seem to get along with it . Would appreciate expert intervention, Thank you -- Sahil 05:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have relisted - the "keep" !votes don't fully convince me - in fact, some people there seem to have no concept of notability. I'd prefer to see additional policy-based discussion. Note: that's a community discussion, not a fight between you and Msnicki. *NOTE*: Sahil, can you please fix your signature, as it does not link to either your userpage or talkpage as required the panda ₯’ 08:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course its not a fight , we are just in disagreement :D . I feel i had been polite throughout just as much as co-editor Msnicki , correct me if i am wrong. Oh, and about the sign , i dont know why my four tildes aren't working. If anyone can , please help me out at my talk page ( although thats a totally different topic) . Peace ! -- Sahil 09:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Operation Protetective Edge Background SYNTH issue[edit]

I initiated discussion on the original research noticeboard and made reference to it at the talk page of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict regarding the background section being a classic example of SYNTH. There has been little traction and now the whole thing is locked down. The reasoning behind allowing the paragraph to stay is solely based on "other stuff exists". Can we get a couple eyes at the other noticeboard? I honestly can't see how the info can stay but would feel better if folks took a look and gave a quick summary based on policy for it meeting Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel is trying to kill off or cripple as much of the Hamas war machine as they can. Is there some issue about that fact? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It is grossly out of line that Wikipedia actually has had a live edit stating: "The pro-Israeli version is that..." for a day now. Every major RS notes that the spark was kids getting killed on both sides. It is fun to try to assign blame and I thought that there was no way edits so out of line with WP standards would stand. I was incorrect. This is a good example of why Wikipedia is losing both editors and readers. No one reads past the lead anyways so it isn't a big deal. La Familia can continue to the fight in the street since the internet is obviously a boring cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-semitic conspiracy theorist user not here to build an encyclopedia[edit]

Themainman69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) started off trying to ask for WP:FRINGE end-times material at Talk:Solomon and Talk:Book of Revelation. WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE have been explained to him, but he continued to request that Solomon receiving 666 talents centuries before Revelation was written be added as "proof" that Israel is the Beast, and has started ranting at Talk:Jews about how Jews were made up a couple of centuries ago. at Talk:Albert Einstein he tries to push for the POV that Albert Einstein stole everything from Germans (in isolation, not that much of an issue, but given his other views, clearly anti-semitic POV-pushing). At Talk:Jews, he intentionally misspells Jew, accuses an editor (by merit of being ethnically Jewish) of keeping Christians "in the dark", and makes bad faith assumptions about other users. When a user tried to explain why our article say what it does, Themainman69 accused him of being a religious fanatic, and told the other user "I see you have no regard for truth nor wikipedias verifiability standard," and calls him a religious nut, and tells the non-religious but ethnically Jewish editor to "Get over your religion before you fly a plane into a building for it". Given his other behavior of this is so blatantly hypocritical given his other behavior I cannot assume both good faith and competence.

This user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. He's either a troll, insane, a neo-Nazi, or some combination thereof, and this site does not need him. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My money's on "lunatic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I was waiting to see if I was the only person who thought our friend had overstayed his welcome. I've indef-blocked him. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. And have you considered Skeet shooting? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh wow, why did anyone put up with this guy for so long?--v/r - TP 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
3 days? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's four days too long, but I was only aware of his antics at Talk:Solomon and Talk:Book of Revelation until this morning. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually seven, as it turns out he created the account about three days before he started using it. I wonder if he's got some sleeper cells. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic changing templates at WP:WPTC[edit]

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been embarking on a complete overhaul of Template:Infobox hurricane; while this has met a lot of opposition at WT:WPTC, the real reason I am here is because of the repeated disruptions involving Template:Infobox hurricane current. In this section, Netoholic repeatedly argues against the clear consensus that "hurricane current" should be left alone (and not merged with "Infobox hurricane"). The user then took the "hurricane current" template to TfD (see here, in what may have been bad faith, as it was clear there was no support for deletion. Then, going against consensus, Netoholic did this (which was quickly reverted), as well as this (without even bothering to leave an edit summary). Then, today, apparently still not following consensus, Netoholic made this change, which was similar to the previous one. I think me and several other members of WP:WPTC are past tired of these antics. Also, another thing tiring editors is Netoholic's repeated attempts to "fix" unbroken things, which has also met opposition from longtime WP:WPTC editors. You can see most of that frustration at WT:WPTC. Some, including myself and User:Yellow Evan, are at the point of calling for all of these unwanted changes to be reverted. United States Man (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Specific relevant discussions include:
I hope those specific links help in some way or another regarding this. There have also been relevant discussions at User talk:Netoholic. Dustin (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I Oppose any action against Netoholic. An indepth analysis of the above links complemented by the discussion on this user's talk page would reveal that this user is just pursuing in good faith what s/he believes to be right. The banner on the talk page "Some thoughts" also summarize the theme of his editing efforts here. Sticking to one's convictions consistent with the overall Wikipedia policies does not and should not warrant an action. The above issue should be resolved through discussion on respective talk pages. No admin action needed. --PeterCRames (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So you are saying that repeatedly going against consensus deserves no action? Some of this may be in good-faith, but some is also disruptive. United States Man (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Amazing that a week-old account with only 42 edits is able to make such an indepth study regarding Wikipedia's ways and an editor's intentions. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Calton again avoid personal attacks plz. "a week-old account with only 42 edits" - Do unregistered users not use Wikipedia? How do these metrics predict a person's knowledge level about Wikipedia policies? I don't claim to be knowledgeable but an IP is also allowed to voice it's opinion. If there is a minimum rule prescribed by the admin I'll stop right away. Else I'll voice my opinion in the disputes I'm not involved. --PeterCRames (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, since I have made no personal attacks whatsoever, your laughably clumsy bit of deflection will receive no consideration whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 16:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've read the WPTC thread (leading up to this AN/I request) and I don't see a need for an admin to step in. Protonk (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A bit of offensive bigotry[edit]

Requesting a review of the exchange here. The user Asdisis (talk · contribs) proposed a change to the article's text. My reply to his post was to the effect that his position is based on a misconception about Croatian national history, and against cited sources. To which he replied I am a Serbian nationalist pushing a Serbian nationalist agenda (Croats and Serbs being rather antagonistic towards each other due to the '90s war). My response was to point out I am in fact Croatian (just as he is), and that his allegations are absurd. To which I was informed that I am likely a secret Serb nevertheless, posing as a Croat to deceive him, with the user continuously making references to my Serbian "nationalist agenda" (most recently in the thread below that one [168]). My stomach churning somewhat, I decided to appeal to the community for a warning or sanction against further such behavior. -- Director (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

1 - I had not purposed any change, I just started a discussion.
2 - I had not hastily accused Director of nationalistic agenda. I had other discussions with him, and I based my allegation upon my experience dealing with him in earlier discussions. That is why i stated in my first response to him that "I suspect he has nationalistic agenda" and that I think discussing him is pointless. I simply do not want to discuss with him since I consider that his actions are not done in good faith.
3 - After my first response, he said that he is Croatian, thus he can't have anti-Croatian nationalistic agenda. I stated that his claim that he is Croatian can not mean that he does not have nationalistic agenda. I explicitly said that his act determine his behavior, not his nationality.
4 - I also stated that there is a possibility he is lying about his nationality to hide his nationalistic agenda. I personally think that is the case here. I based my allegation upon his pro-Serbian nationalistic agenda. There are far better chances that he is Serbian, since he has pro-Serbian nationalistic agenda. However I explicitly said that his nationality is not important and that his claims can not erase a clear pattern of his behavior. In the above post he is misrepresenting the case, stating that I accused him being Serbian, and that he has nationalistic agenda. The case is quite the opposite. I said that he has nationalistic agenda, and that I think there are far better chances that he is lying about his nationality so he could disprove any allegation about his nationalistic agenda. I have seen that tactics on several occasions.
5 - I never stated my nationality, so the above post reflects Director's opinion. I may also accuse him of alleging my nationality.
6 - I have not constantly referring to Director's nationalistic agenda. I had other discussions with him and I base my allegation on those discussions.
7 - I would be willing to reference that discussions, since they are important for this case. If only this discussion is looked, it may look like I accused Director of nationalistic agenda out of the clear sky. That is not the case. I also oppose to discuss nationalities. I had not based my allegation upon nationality. On the other hand, Director had tried to overturn my allegation with stating his nationality. I explicitly said that nationalities are not important, only acts and patterns of behavior. I only mentioned my opinion about Director's nationality because I think he is lying, and that is related to his acts. Even if he is telling the truth about his nationality, and there is no way to confirm that, his Croatian nationality can not mean that he does not have nationalistic agenda. Asdisis (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk about the content not the contributor, both of you. Argumentum ad hominem will only lead to trouble. If you cannot stick to talking about the content then consider taking a break or just work in another area. Regardless of who either of you are your arguments should stand on their own. Chillum 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem tactics have a great rate of success on Wikipedia. I'm a new editor and from the first discussion I had I learned that. My several dozen sources were overturn by ad-hominem attacks. I mention that, because Director himself used ad-hominem attack and accused me of sock sockpuppeting. I had not used ad-hominem attack in this discussion. I just stated that I refuse to discuss with Director, and stated my reasoning. Asdisis (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you refuse to discuss with Director, then move to another article. Consensus doesn't exist without discussion - problem solved. the panda ₯’ 20:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I already have moved on. I noted that discussion is open for other editors and I would like to objectively discuss with anyone who is rational and reasonable. It seems that my analysis have touched Director's nerve so he brought this to ANI. Asdisis (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice personal attacks. Not planning on sticking around long, eh? Drop by, stir up crap, make insults, then be shown the door? Wouldn't be surprised if you'd had previous run-ins with Director with another account and figured you'd try to pop another nail in the coffin the panda ₯’ 22:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Those are serious allegations. I do not think this is appropriate. "stir up crap" , "insults"?? You will have to explain. I had previous discussions with Director, yes. I haven't up to now accused him of anything, although he used ad-hominem attacks against me in those discussions. In fact i regarded him in those discussions as the only one who is discussing in good faith. Up to now, my behavior towards him was commendable. As for the last allegation. Is it common for Director to have "run-ins"? Has someone else made the same allegations against him? I really did not have previous accounts, what makes you think I had? Director, and another editor also accused me of that, but I regarded that allegations as a part of ad-hominem attack, since they haven't further explained. Asdisis (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You just suggested he was not "rational and reasonable", right? You don't feel that meets the definition of a personal attack? the panda ₯’ 22:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of sheer curiosity: whose "nationalistic agenda" do you believe I am pushing? -- Director (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User at Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409[edit] (talk · contribs) has been pushing their preferred version of the article despite an ongoing discussion at the article's talk. I reverted their edits twice ([169], [170]) S(he) reverted these edits and after the second reversion s(he) started a discusssion at the article's talk. Another reversion came from (talk · contribs) ([171]). Discussion continued at talk up until another reversion of them ([172]), with no clear intentions of continuing the discussion ([173]). Another reversion of mine followed, I reported the IP at WP:AIV and reverted myself, waiting for a response there. I removed the WP:AIV and decided to report the IP here as their conduct cannot be labelled as blatant vandalism. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a whole paragraph written that has NO sources, also some of the references provided are not reliable (I.e. YouTube). This is apparently original research, reverting to their preferred version. (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this anything more than a run-of-the-mill content dispute? You removed content from the article, another editor disagreed, you had a minor edit war, you started a discussion on the talk page, and then you immediately bring it to AIV and ANI? Perhaps you should let the discussion run its course first. If it doesn't go your way, you can either accept that your preferred version of the article is not preferred by other editors, or you can go look for a wider consensus by going to WP:3O or WP:DR. Other than that, there is no reason to report this incident here, because the IP editor(s) have not done anything wrong. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 21:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read the talk page discussion fully. You're reverting unsourced content, and the IP is reinstating it without a source. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, some content that were sourced has unreliable sources. (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Added a warning to the IP's talk page. If he reverts again today, he will have violated WP:3RR and should be blocked. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)

@Scottywong: Exactly. Of course, my intention was and is to continue the discussion since the topic of the article is somewhat controversial regarding the investigation, but the IP stated s(he) will not continue further and reverted again. What really bothers me is that reversion, which shows an attitude towards WP:POINT.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:BracketBot is malfunctioning[edit]

Bracketbot's had some distractions lately. EEng (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Gave me a nice laugh, for what it's worth. I guess it goes to show that you gotta catch 'em all! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. One of my better efforts, if I do say so myself. EEng (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks, edit warring on Kayastha[edit]

Blocked one week by DarkFalls - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Charming edit summaries: [174], [175], [176], [177]

Warnings: [178], [179], [180], [181], [182]

Someone want to tell them what our code of conduct is? --NeilN talk to me 00:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) The personal attacks alone warrant a block here, not even delving into the issue of the content dispute. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 02:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Block. Personal attacks, and edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:RFP backlog[edit]

Looks like it's going back a day and we could use a bit of housecleaning there. Thanks. Nate (chatter) 01:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior from an IP[edit] was very rude to me when he left an insulting message on my talk page. I wondered how such wandering IPs could the disturb the peaceful atmosphere of wikipedia. Mhhossein (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately unaware of any areas of Wikipedia where we have a "peaceful atmosphere", however, I have briefly blocked for the multiple personal attacks 09:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerousPanda (talkcontribs)


Hello. Can someone please check the contributions made by JajaDSeries (talk · contribs). That's a clear disruptive/vandalic pattern, with the addition of unverifiable (and unlikely) content, among other things. I've reverted all their edits, templated them at their talk page and reported the user at WP:AIV (no response there yet), but disruptions continue ([183]). Let me add that the recent protection of Air Botswana responds to similar edit patterns made by the user and also the IP 121.54.54.XXX range. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And this is just ridiculous.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting urgent administrative actions against users Alessandro57, Bishonen, and Kwamikagami[edit]

Withdrawn with great fanfare by the OP and the promise to take her complaint to a page with arguably even more drama than this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

My formal requests[edit]

1. Just as I have been blocked for disruptive editing and edit-warring, I kindly request that similar punishments are handed out to Kwamikagami, who was guilty of his very own Wikipedia violations, including edit-warring, disruptive editing, removal of sourced content, refusal to discuss issues in the article talk pages, etc.

2. I also kindly request that Alessandro57 is blocked for not assuming good faith regarding my edits, by falsely accusing me of having an agenda; for repeatedly canvassing, in order to establish consensus in article talk pages; and, finally, for his very own disruptive editing in the Azerbaijani language and Turkish language articles. Here you can find links to where he has canvassed, falsely accused me of harboring an agenda, and contributed to disruptive editing:

2a. (Not assuming good faith, false allegation and canvassing in the form of campaigning.)

2b. (Canvassing by inviting a member who I was in dispute with in another article, thereby trying to use vote-stacking as a method to gain consensus. Thankfully that member didn't get himself involved as he knew it would be controversial.)

2c. (Disruptive editing even after the issue was thought to have been agreed upon.)

2d. (In a twist of irony, he has removed sourced content without first discussing it after reverting my version. Later he realized it wasn't right and undid his edit, but this is the kind of disruptive editing he has been guilty of committing in pages that I've tried contributing to, which led to my block in the first place.)

2e. (Failure to discuss it first in the talk page.)

2f. (Failure to discuss it first in the talk page.)

3. Last but not last, I kindly request that an action -- any action -- is taken against Bishonen for not being even-handed in his/her administrative duties.

Thank you and please bring justice to what has happened as I feel wronged by what has unraveled in the last two days. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Since the start of June I count eighteen reverts by you in 70 total edits by all users, not only against Kwami but against a number of other editors as well. Such an editing pattern may well be seen as disruptive. In addition you have accused others of "vandalism" for edits that are cleary not. I doubt if this appeal will gain much traction. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) Responding to this point-by-point:
  1. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Therefore, even if your accusation against Kwami had merit, the relief requested would be inappropriate.
  2. I see no disruptive canvassing, as opposed to neutrally asking for input from experienced editors. Such behavior is to be encouraged (so long as it's not done to the point of annoying those from whom input is requested). All I see wrong here is perhaps a misunderstanding of WP:BRD... Alex shouldn't have reverted a second time. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander: You not only didn't discuss after reverting, you went and reverted yet again.
  3. Bishonen's conduct looks impeccable here. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the block you received in light of the sheer number of reverts involved. Perhaps the article could have been full protected instead, but I believe some deference to Bishonen's expertise is in order.
In short, I see nothing here meriting immediate administrator intervention. More eyes on a page are always welcome, but that's not what ANI is for. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Other interesting material more directly relevant to my block of Kutsuit can be seen on her talkpage before she blanked it a couple of hours ago.[184]. Note especially that she chose not to request unblock, even though she calls the block stupid, pathetic, biased and abusive. I really don't understand why she didn't. There are four separate warnings from me about battleground editing, and especially about personalising content conflicts, in her talkpage history, starting on April 19, 2014, after I'd noticed the user on Diannaa's page and had then seen her ignore Diannaa's advice. [185][186][187] (scroll down) [188]. To my mind, the user's pattern of quickly moving advice/warnings from me off to an archive is quite striking. Here, she archived the page, and here, after a single new post, which was a block warning from me, she archived again. That pattern is not against any rules, of course, but neither does it suggest openness to criticism. A lack of such openness can also be seen in her confrontational, indignant style on her own page and elsewhere. As I said here, it's difficult to find a single soft answer anywhere in her talkpage history. She's immediately up in arms whenever contradicted or criticised. It's a wearying style, which she uses on article talkpages as well. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC).
    • Two can play this game, Bishonen. You have already previously accused me of blanking my talk page for an "ulterior motive" even though I was simply archiving them and anyone is free to read them. Furthermore, you have also posted condescending messages to me in the past, telling me to "count to 10 and think" before writing another message, etc. Furthermore, another Wiki user, Volunteer Marek, has warned you in the past from threatening new members and you've also been involved in falsely accusing another Wikipedia member of making a sock account: Don't worry, the list goes on. After all, you were blocked by Jimmy Wales himself for being offensive, even when you just became an admin. Furthermore, it's funny you mention past events but I'd also like to question why you always harassed my talk page with warning after warning, while not doing the same thing with other users, such as IIIraute. In short Bishonen, you have things to answer to. And if the admins here aren't willing to see your unevenness and misuse of administrative powers, then I certainly wont mind taking it to Jimmy Wales, and again I'm sure he wont be amused. Speaking of soft, I've given many people the benefit of the doubt. Go look at my archives and see how many insults I received by other users, including IPs, but I never had them reported because it's not in my nature. You, on the other hand, have taken a biased decision against me, without handing out similar deserved punishments to the other users, which goes completely against the neutrality that Wikipedia admins should be standing for. And please just remember, I'll take this to the owner of Wikipedia in due time. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) If it weren't for the sensitivity regarding accusations of administrator misconduct, I would close this discussion now. Nadia, if nothing else, your rhetoric both here and on your talk page is so inflammatory as to be disruptive in and of itself (e.g., "proposal to grill administrator Bishonen"). Your central complaint is the block was unfair and others should have been blocked. This is not an uncommon complaint, although normally it's made in an unblock request, not after the fact. Administrators have discretion to block one user and not another based on their determination as to who merits a block. The issue is not whether others deserve a block, but whether you deserved a block. Additionally, your idea of canvassing is misguided. Editors are entitled to go to an administrator's talk page and ask for help. That doesn't constitute canvassing. Moreover, administrators don't take action just because an editor thinks action may be warranted. Administrators make independent decisions, and if you believe that Bishonen is anything but independent in her actions, you don't know her very well. I suggest you let go and learn from this rather than go off the deep end as you've done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Where did I mention canvassing to an admin? Alessandro canvassed when he went to another user and asked him for help after he accused me of having an agenda in the same message. What do you call that? Where's the assumption of good faith in that? Anyway, here's another false accusation by Bishonen: Falsely accusing me of harboring a grudge after I found something to be funny. Followed by a sneaky threat near the end of the comment too. I'm not here for trouble, you should know that. I just want to stop being targeted by Bishonen, which he/she has done since April/May. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
      • So now you've changed what you want. You are just angry at Bishonen and want her to stop "stalking" you. I don't see it as stalking but counseling. I don't know the whole background, but at first glance, her comment (your diff) seems reasonable to me. I think she was just trying to help you, but you're taking offense. I didn't like Alessandro's comment much, either, btw, but in the scheme of things it's not terribly important. Frankly, I think you do a better job of making yourself a target than anyone else could. You should really look more at your own part in all this instead of feeling persecuted by the world.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Er, Nadia, why do you keep posting all those diffs to my posts? Didn't you notice I already posted all of them above, and isn't this long and repetitious enough? It's hardly worth my while getting embroiled in pricking all the cocksure balloons you send up, but I will respond about User:Daniellagreen. Daniella's sock was obvious enough, but I actually got the green light from a checkuser before I blocked it. I see you link to a version of Daniella's page containing only her indignant denial, immediately before the checkuser (Coren) had posted there and pricked that balloon. See also this and this. Whoever provided you with that cherrypicked diff has misled you. And I'll respond about Jimbo's 2009 block of me, too. No, it wasn't "when I just became an admin", who told you that? I was already then an experienced admin, and Jimbo lived to regret it. See the mention of the incident on this page (making a text search for "Bishonen" is the simplest way of finding it). Do feel free to take your complaint to Jimbo's page. I too am sure he won't be amused, though in a different sense. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Oh don't worry sweetheart, he won't regret it when he finds out how you've misused your administrative powers. Ta ta. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Bbb23, you can close this discussion now. To be honest, I didn't expect any understanding from the admins around here, but I thought I should give it a try before taking it up to Jimmy Wales. The fact is, I felt wronged to have been the only person penalized, for something that other users were equally guilty of doing. Such complacency on the part of the rest of the administrators, including yourself, could only mean that Wikipedia violations apply only to some users but not to others, in which case it's a disgrace and the shame certainly isn't on me. It's a fact that Bishonen has targeted me for many months now, and given unbalanced warnings to me while not giving similar warnings to other users who were in dispute with me and guilty of their own wrongdoings. She -- and I'm honestly disappointed to find out it's a fellow female -- has given me a hellish time in Wikipedia and is guilty of her own wrongdoings, not just against me but against so many other users too, and other members can testify to that. If you cant see how she was condescending, one-sided and biased, then there's really no use to continue this discussion. And if you cant see that she had falsely accused me of things as well, made threats and harassed me for ages, then, once again, there's no point for having this discussion. Anyway, I'll by lying if I said I didn't know that fellow admins would be quick to take another fellow administrator's side. Anyway, I'm going to make a complaint to Jimmy Wales one day and then call it a day and leave Wikipedia. There's no point in adding sourced content or making articles as encyclopedic, unbiased, informative and as sourced as possible, if they're simply going to be reverted by users who end up escaping administrative sanctions. Thanks for reading my complaint anyway, but please don't tell me that I feel like I'm persecuted by the World. What a joke. Wikipedia is not my World and should never be anyone's. Do I feel wronged? Of course. But am I going to feel sorry for myself? No, and my nature in real life is contrary to any feelings of persecution ROFL. I'm going to fight this in due time and make sure that justice is served. Take care. ;-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Threat of a block[edit]

An IP editor,, told me through an edit summary (this one), "You touch this update one more time and I'll have you blocked.. The updates are fully acceptable.", and on his talk: "You touch those updates one more time I'm yanking funding. The links work..". I reverted his addition because he used Wikipedia in three of his five incorrectly formatted sources. I take the threat as especially hostile because of the manner he said it in. I cite WP:Harassment, "Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. and "Threatening another person is considered harassment." MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)