Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Continuation of HOUNDing 12 days after last warning

Belchfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has resumed the WP:HOUNDing of Roscelese. He was warned to stop his hounding 12 days ago on his talk page by Roscelese, but today he followed her to two articles he has never appeared at before, and edited against her work: here and here. She warned him again but I think this continuation is past warning—it's time for action.

12 days ago I added my weight and perspective to the warning on Belchfire's page: [1]

Hounding may include "actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them", which exactly describes Belchfire's sudden interjections at articles that have been recently edited by Roscelese or myself. There was "no overriding reason" for Belchfire to suddenly appear for the first time at False flag to revert me, or to suddenly appear at A Scandal in Belgravia, A Study in Pink and The Reichenbach Fall to revert Roscelese here, here and here. Each of these appearances was Belchfire's first time showing up at these articles, and in each case it was directly counter to the target editor. It's a clear case of HOUNDing, and if it continues he's apt to earn time out."

It is clear that he has not taken any of this to heart, that he does not consider his actions harmful. I think it is now time for "time out" for this disruptive and contentious editor. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Alas -- I looked, and did not see the blatant hounding two editors who are both active on WoW etc. assert. BF and Binksternet overlap on 34 articles - all of which fall into the same general category of politics, and none of which appear to be outside reasonable bounds for both to be interested in. BF and Roscelese overlap on a grand total of 54 articles -- also all within the same general area. Roscelese and Binksternet overlap on 169 articles -- which is a huge overlap, indeed. Covering a broad range of topics they both are coincidentally interested in. And if anyone were stalking them, they would surely hit some of those other articles. I have similar intersection numbers - and out of my 3K articles, I assure you that I do not "hound" anyone. In short - accept that articles in the same general sphere being edited by two editors does not indicate "hounding" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of the two diffs you cite above, the second does not appear to be an "edit[] against her work", but a rewording of a couple of sentences that, as far as I can tell, she had nothing to do with; she just restored the material removed by another editor. Isn't Belchfire interested in LGBT articles? Is there something wrong with Belchfire's edits other than they are on the same articles as Roscelese's, who, btw, is also interested in LGBT articles? Hounding is a tough charge to sustain without hard evidence that the edits by the alleged hounder are actually unreasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The key point is that Belchfire had never touched the articles in the links until he noticed that his hounding target went to that article. In the hate crimes link he did not revert Roscelese directly but he edited the exact same paragraph that she had edited, and it was his first appearance there. I see his actions falling into the pattern of "actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them" which is part of our hounding guideline. I feel that Belchfire has identified Roscelese as an editor who should be made to feel as uncomfortable as possible. This is hounding. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the editing overlap goes beyond merely a shared interest in subject matter. When using one of the Toolserver tools, I discovered the number of pages on which Roscelese is being followed by Belchfire and the amount of time between edits, during the month of November 2012: link. Compare that with my overlap with Binksternet, with whom I share several interests, and who I see quite frequently: link. There's a big difference in the number of pages and the type of pages, and a big difference in the time interval as well. In my opinion this backs up the premise that Belchfire has been following Roscelese around. -- Dianna (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, have you checked any of the articles to see what Belchfire does with respect to Roscelese's edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no control group. To assign meaning to the interaction report, we'd need to see the total list of distinct articles Belchfire edited in November. Additionally, the report is sensitive to the date range selected; selecting a different period can show a different apparent picture. See [2]and [3]. NE Ent 01:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23: what kind of edits Belchfire does is immaterial; he could just show up a few minutes after Roscelese edits and do a productive edit. Do that enough times, and people start to think it's not a coincidence. @Ent: I didn't want to put up a lot of examples and then have to notify a bunch of uninvolved people that they were mentioned here. But suffice to say that I did do several other comparisons. But you know what they say about statistics; I could be misinterpreting what I'm seeing. I think we should wait for Belchfire to comment -- Dianna (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hey. Thanks Binksternet for bringing this here. Anyway, as the following links will show, Belchfire demonstrates (at least of late, I'm not looking back further at the moment) a pattern of editing that is clearly a) following me to articles, b) undoing my edits for c) no productive purpose.

[4][5][6][7] Reverts my removal of a redundant category from some Sherlock articles (they're all in the "Sherlock episodes" category already). Has never edited the articles before, it's nowhere near his topic area, clearly got there from my edit history, the edit is counterproductive in that it adds an unnecessary category that impedes proper navigation.

[8] Reverts my restoration of reliably sourced material removed by a vandal. Only prior edit to the article was a minor copyedit in August. (and later popped up again, once again for the sole purpose of removing reliably sourced material which I had been the most recent user to add)

[9] Reverts my edit in order to restore content that is not in the source and that makes no sense (the four-letter abbreviation "LGBT" contains the letter "I" for intersex? has reading changed since I learned it as a child?). Has never edited the article; it's theoretically possible that he got there through the project watchlist, but combined with the other instances of his hounding me to articles in order to pointlessly revert me, it's clearly not coincidental.

It seems clear to me that Belchfire is sulking about being called out on his persistent edit-warring at War on Women and choosing to take it out on users he perceives as foiling his personal political agenda, but that, unfortunately for him, is not what Wikipedia is here for. He has twice blown off warnings about his behavior and thereafter continued said behavior, so it is likewise clear that further warnings will not be enough to get him to edit collaboratively with, rather than vindictively against, other users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the edits Roscelese points to. They are pretty damming. Belchfire should get at least a stern talking to, if not more. FurrySings (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think an admin should give a final "cease and desist" warning to Belchfire. If he continues a block and/or one-way interaction ban should be imposed. This does not bode well. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The messages diff'ed above-- which including allegations of "sulking," "spite" and demands for the editor to "grow up," are as much escalatory attacks as anything. NE Ent 13:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that my response to Belchfire's harassment retroactively justifies the harassment? I would suggest that you re-think that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If the edits are productive, they clearly do not appear to be in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work which means they do not fit the definition of "hound" on Wikipedia. The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing. Also not apparently present in the "case" at hand. Again - there appear to be as many cases where each editor "edited first" which means this is all an absurd exercise worthy of Becket (Samuel). Collect (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"If the edits are productive" is a big if, since, as I've demonstrated, they're all destructive edits that appear to have been thought through no further than the degree to which they would inconvenience productive users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When problem editors present themselves, it is perfectly acceptable to monitor their contributions from time to time. When the last "warning" was issued about 2 weeks ago I examined the Sherlock Holmes related article and thought that BF's revert of your edit was perfectly reasonable. In fact I raised this question on BF's talk page. Not until you posted on this thread did I understand your perfectly reasonable explanation. Your claim that BF's edits were destructive and were done out of malice flies in the face of reason. Such behavior and boorish communication skills does not rise to the level of AGF.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what behavior of mine you feel justifies the harassment, and why you believe the appropriate action in response is harassment instead of the usual WP processes? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you feel harrased does not mean mean a perfectly innocuous edit constitutes harrassment. That is something for the community to determine via this thread. I dont think it's unlikely that BF is the first editor to look at anothers contributions and made subsequent improvements to articles outside of their normal scope.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

All that has been demonstrated is Belchfire has edited content that other editors agreed can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will.NE Ent 13:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that the response you give when someone blanks an article and replaces it with "penis"? When someone makes the same revert six times in two hours? Of course not. The fact that Wikipedia content can be edited at will is never an excuse for bad behavior. Please don't give such poorly thought out excuses for him, this is a serious discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There's been no evidence Belchfire has done either behavior -- if they have, please provide diffs. NE Ent 01:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It seemed obvious to me that these were examples chosen to point out that your comment did not contribute to this discussion. Vandalism is still against policy even though WP content can be edited at will; edit-warring (such as Belchfire's at War on Women) is still against policy even though WP content can be edited at will; harassment of other users is still against policy even though WP content can be edited at will. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire has declined to participate in this discussion: Diff of User talk:Belchfire -- Dianna (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If I thought there was a valid, credible complaint to address here, I would have done so. There isn't. Prior to Roscelese's last attempt to smear me, it seemed to me that Collect and Bbb23 were doing a fine job of diffusing the nonsense. But that was before this: "Is that the response you give when someone blanks an article and replaces it with "penis"? When someone makes the same revert six times in two hours?" And with that, I think it should be easy enough to see what's really going on here - this is a naked failure of AGF on the part of Roscelese and Binksternet. (Note the lack of diffs to go along with that pair of bombshell accusations.)

As I specified in the edit summary that Diana brought forward, yes, these two editors are simply paranoid. Both spend a huge proportion of their time here working on LGBT-related articles (or in Roscelese's case, articles related to feminism), and both have a solid track record of ownership behavior and/or taking things personally when others do not agree with their worldviews. (Roscelese, for her part, is not above outright censorship when she sees something that she doesn't like. [10][11])

What we have here is (1) a content dispute, rather than a behavioral issue; and (2) an attempt by political-activist editors to silence their opposition . Neither of these add-up to a matter for ANI action, other than a potential boomerang. For further explanation, and for your continued edification, I direct your attention to this essay covering the editor behavior on display here. Belchfire-TALK 00:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's a great example of how you follow policy in the LGBT topic area and I do not. My removal of the Prop 8 protests from your synthesized article on gay terrorism! Well chosen. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on this board so apologies if I don't get the protocol quite right. It does appear that a lot of the complaints about Belchfire's behaviour focus on Binksternet's opinions of the motives behind the edits rather than the edits themselves. It therefore seems that there is a failure to AGF by Binksternet. I would also suggest that Roscelese either strikes the "penis" comment or provides diffs. Love and peace. Tigerboy1966  01:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The argument that Belchfire might have only good motives would be more convincing if he hadn't continued the behavior after being warned on two separate occasions that it constituted harassment and was against Wikipedia policy. Generally, if one is misbehaving with good intentions, one ceases the misbehavior upon finding out that it is such, but instead, Belchfire removed the warnings with edit summaries consisting of personal attacks, and continued harassing me. Also see my response above to NE Ent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That he was warned that he was harassing means squat really. Maybe warn him to stop beating his wife as well. Has an uninvolved admin warned him? Maybe I missed that, and if I did, I apologize. --Malerooster (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Sorry, it looks like user:Diannaa is taking your side here. Has she warned him before? --Malerooster (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966, after many, many examples to the contrary I stopped thinking that Belchfire's edits are made in good faith. This is not a conclusion I have arrived at lightly! No, it is serious business, hinging upon what is good or bad for Wikipedia. The administrator Swatjester looked into the problem and gave Belchfire a very strong warning, showing an extensive string of Belchfire diffs to prove that there was a pattern of bad behavior. The same Swatjester list was brought to ANI by Justdafax in the Belchfire topic ban proposal, but neither of these efforts appear to have helped Belchfire change his ways. What I'm pointing to here is not a small problem! It is a small part of an extended problem: Belchfire's tendentious editing behavior. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

After having looked at just the diffs presented here, the conclusion that this is harassment is completely obvious to me, as someone who has never before looked at the problem (and hasn't significantly interacted with either party as best as memory serves). Each edit, taken individually, seems trivial. But some are so obviously wrong (particularly those presented by Roscelese), that it simply stretches the bounds of credulity to think that Belchfire was just randomly improving articles of interest to him. This is the exact equivalent of hostile workplace tactics, wherein the harasser doesn't do anything abhorrent, but instead takes small actions over a period of time designed to make the other person feel unwelcome. Here, the simple fact that Belchfire is showing up and reverting edits which are required per policy (I'm thinking here, for example, of the re-addition of parent categories in the Sherlock examples) is a way of saying "Hey, Roscelese, I'm here. Did you want to edit? No, I don't know if you can handle that." Roscelese is then placed in a position of having to be perfect every time, or then expect to see Belchfire come in and revert the edit; and, again, in the Sherlock case, even when perfect, is compelled to get involved in a dispute for something that isn't by our rules disputable. To be honest, I think that, at the bare minimum, Belchfire should be forbidden from reverting Roscelese or from re-working those things which Roscelese has recently done. If Roscelese does make a legitimate "error", there are thousands of other editors who can fix it. Should such a commitment not be forthcoming from Belchfire, blocking seems like the next step. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Qwyrxian. It's a vio of WP:HOUND in my view. Jusdafax 11:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire interaction ban

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

---

I propose that Belchfire be restricted from interacting with Roscelese per WP:IBAN. Roscelese would be encouraged not to interact with Belchfire, to reduce friction, but she would not be saddled with a corollary interaction ban. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per Binksternet and Qwyrxian. We either uphold Wikipedia's rules or we don't. Jusdafax 18:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Qwyrxian's explanation of the events seems to be accurate. Sædon^talk 20:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Assuming my !vote as an involved user is admissible, I obviously support such a ban, since less following me around and reverting my productive edits is better both for my comfort as an editor and for Wikipedia's content and policy enforcement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• I hate more rules, but I would prefer that both editors follow the rules laid out at IBAN. It seems that would difuse things greatly. --Malerooster (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose One way interaction bans are problematic at best - and in the case at hand, it certainly appears the problems were not only in that one direction. Make it two way or none at all and let Wikipedia processes work normally. I commend editors to read the ArbCom discussions thereon, and see how poorly the "one way bans" work in general. And I suggest that Binksternet be included as well, as it is clear that Binksternet is part and parcel of this particular conflict. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Qwyrxian's sound analysis. Cavarrone (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, I can see why Binksternet and Roscelese think that there has been hounding, but I don't feel that the case has been proved. I think everyone involved should stop using edit summaries inappropriately.  Tigerboy1966  22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if it's not imposed in all directions, as per Collect's comment above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  How is it even possible for you to interact with someone who is banned from interacting with you. I guess the proposer wishes to make it clear who is the culprit and who is the victim, but is it really necessary? How could Roscelese even interact with Belchfire without Belchfire interacting with Roscelese? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  Precisely. The one editor could freely post on the other editor's page, and the other editor would be breaking the ban by responding to it. Nope, it's both ways or no ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Reality check: Roscelese doesn't WANT to interact with Belchfire. Perhaps you've forgotten it's the reason she brought this action in the first place. Congrats on falling for a phony false-equivalency argument. -- Calton | Talk 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Given that, an interaction ban on Rosce should be no problem for anyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Given that you don't seem to understand the point -- perhaps you should look up the word "fair"? -- maybe you shouldn't ask ridiculous questions. And here's one for you: who in this situation is thee one with the self-control problm that needs disciplining? Hint: the name doesn't begin with "R". --Calton | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  It is you that doesn't understand. You can't impose a one-way interaction ban. If you want to ban Fire from the topic, that's a different argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If there's going to be an interaction ban, it must be bidirectional. That then assumes that Roscelese is to be sanctioned as well as Belchfire, which doesn't make much sense given the evidence presented. To the extent there is a consensus that Belchfire has been hounding Roscelese (I expressed an early opinion to the contrary, but I haven't looked at all the diffs subsequent to that opinion), then Qwyrxian's idea of blocking IF Belchfire persists makes much more sense to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you are saying that Belchfire should be blocked if he reverts Roscelese again, I should think we have already arrived there. He was warned two weeks ago by Roscelese and myself but he picked up his hounding of her 12 days later. Will we warn him again and again with never any action? Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Qwyrxian. The hounding needs to end now, and it is coming from Belchfire. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Collect. NE Ent 23:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Collect, given how nonsensical his comments were. ---Calton | Talk 01:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, Collect opposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• He's saying he's voting opposite of whichever way Collect votes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• You're so much more clever than I am, BB, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes I'm so smart it almost frightens me. [A quote from Jack-Wabbit and the Beanstalk] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Don't pat yourslf on the back just yet: He's saying he's voting opposite of whichever way Collect votes is not what I said. Hint: your "whichever" is imaginary. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's the square root of negative one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, not as smart as you think, then. Stick to recycling Borscht Belt jokes. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I'm obviously a lot dumber than you are, so you'll need to explain this to us: Under what circumstances would Rosco ever need to interact with BurpFlame, or whatever its name is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support with just the way Blinksternet proposed. On principle, we cannot tell the victim that they must avoid the harasser, but it is well-understood that if the victim is the one to initiate interaction, the harasser isn't suddenly required to run. That is, when you get a restraining order against someone, you can't then follow them around, forcing them to run they required number of meters away. So if Roscelese for some reason tried to take advantage of this in articles where the two have an existing history, that would be grounds to extend it to a bidirectional ban, but absent some evidence that that would occur, the thing that matters is to make the harassment stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • From what you're saying, Rosco will be effectively banned from interacting with Fire anyway, so you might as well make it official. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be saying Roscelese was at fault, which she was not. She didn't follow Belchfire to articles about road racing, and revert him. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, IBANS are two-way by default. That's just how it is.

And by the way, using your own logic and standards of conduct, YOU should draw an IBAN for this edit: [12] Belchfire-TALK 02:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Get over yourself, Belchfire: the reason she brought this up in the first place is precisely BECAUSE she doesn't want to interact with you. Sorry, but she's just not that into you, and your and Collect's false equivalency attempt to slap the Scarlet Letter that rightfully belongs to you alone is dishonest. ---Calton | Talk 02:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, Rosco can't be allowed to address or refer to Fire in any way, shape, or form, as it would be unfair - Fire could not respond, as it would violate his interaction ban. So it has to be bidirectional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Has to be"? Pay attention: who's got the self-control problem? Hint: the name begins with "B". --Calton | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• We can't know that every current and future admin will share Qwyrian's interpretation of a one-way ban. In fact, a recent arbcom request shows they can be quite contentious. Given documented overlap in Roscelese's and Belchfire's editing interests, interpretation of a ban would be problematic. Would mean a topic ban for Belchfire for any article Roscelese has ever edited? NE Ent 12:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• An interaction ban cannot be one-sided. By definition. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it can, because "interaction ban" doesn't mean only "cannot interact". It also means "you cannot interact. If you do interact, then we'll have to block you from editing Wikipedia entirely, because we have no technical means to enforce an interaction ban." Placing an interaction ban on Belchfire imposes a strong burden on him to ensure that he does not step in and edit in places where Roscelese is also editing. If Belchfire errs (either out of poor judgment or out of a simple mistake), there are consequences. By not placing the interaction ban similarly on Roscelese, she holds no such responsibility. Again, when you get a restraining order against someone, that does not bind your own activities, with the only caveat being that if you seem to be deliberately flaunting or inciting the harasser (like, say, showing up outside his place of work every day), someone might successfully argue that you don't really want to be restrained. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The "inter" in inter action requires two acting entities. Always. One entity alone can never cause "inter". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears your beef is with the name "interaction ban" rather than with the proposal that Belchfire stop following Roscelese around. Would you agree with that assessment? Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, WP:IBAN is poorly written. The first part of it is all in the plural, e.g., " they are banned from interacting with each other in any way." However, the example given is only from the point of one editor. Not particularly helpful, putting aside the practical issues of a one-way ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seb az86556: that's pretty far-fetched semantic squabbling. But it's poor semantics. "Interaction", by definition, involves two people, but it doesn't entail shared causation. If A addresses B, then even without B's actively doing anything, by definition, A and B have interacted. A single person can force interaction on another, e.g. by engaging in unsollicited postings on the other person's talkpage or by entering a discussion in which the other person was previously involved. If a single person can do it, then a single person can also be told to not do it, and that's exactly what a non-mutual interaction ban does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There's a deeper issue here. An IBAN is an extreme measure, and when it gets to that level, it's time to analyze it more objectively. No one's to blame, mind you. Of all the nastiest disagreements I've had in my years here, an IBAN was never even on the table. We talked it out. Maybe I'm just lucky. Doc talk 05:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because this isn't a disagreement—it's harassment. You can't talk those kind of matters out, because it's a fundamentally inappropriate set of behaviors by one party. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I agree completely. Haven't dissected this case (yet)... Doc talk 06:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If people are unwilling to make a one-way interaction ban (terrible idea as they are easily gamed) and others dont want a two-way as they dont want to 'punish' Rosce, what options are left? Topic ban Belchfire from Rosce's areas of editing? If the goal is to keep one away from the other without punishing the victim, thats the only way outside of an IB to do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not quite true. If the basis for the IBAN is because of WP:HOUND, that says, " If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." So, assuming one agrees that Belchfire meets those conditions, they could be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support I don't get Collect's response, Rosce isn't at fault here, and a two way ban punishes an editor who is not problematic. There is only one way forward, and that's a one way interaction ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I was on the fence until I saw that Belchfire's first ever edit to the Homophobia article was the very next edit after an edit by Roscelese. There is sufficient evidence to support the proposed interaction ban of Belchfire based on WP:HOUND. If Roscelese starts stalking BelchFire, then that will be a discussion for a different day.

I am concerned, however, that an interaction ban may not be sufficient to have any lasting impact on Belchfire's willingness to participate in the collaborative, civil editing environment that we are trying to maintain. He has had numerous warnings and a few blocks, so there has been ample opportunity for self-correction. I'm very hopeful that Belchfire will turn the corner soon, and learn to play well with others, but if not, I would imagine that an indef block might be in his future. - MrX 21:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per collect & from WP:HOUND (emphasis added)

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason

Not to wiki-laywer, but dif BF jump into the talk pages on these articles? Perhaps the policy wording needs to be tweaked. But ignoring whether or not that BF did not engage Rosecelese on talk pages is germane to the intent of WP:HOUND BF's edits to articles like A Scandal in Belgravia were perfectly reasonable edits. The paucity of diffs provided does not rise to the "creepiness" factor yet needed for me to support sanctions.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why I was opposed, but you have expressed it much more effectively. There's also a slight sense of "let's skip the verdict and get onto the sentencing" about all this.  Tigerboy1966  09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Qwyrxian.--В и к и T 09:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Let the dude do whatever he wants, man. He's just editing some stuff. Everyone needs to chillaxulate a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.29.68 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Collect, Baseball Bugs, and Bbb23. One-way interaction bans are both oxymoronic and simply moronic. I will support a two-way ban. Horologium (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  Why, exactly, should we sanction people who are hounded? Has Roscelese responded to the hounding with similar actions (following him around, letting him know that she's "watching" etc.)? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that one-way interaction bans are an effective way of dealing with the issue. While I recognize that the issue currently appears to be one-way, setting it up so that that editor no longer can respond at all will cause issues should the behavior of the other editor change. Judging from the entrenched positions from a number of editors on both sides of the issue (particularly these two), I don't think that the one-way ban is a good idea. I wouldn't be averse to noting in the Editing restrictions log that the interaction ban is not a sanction against Roscelese, but I don't like the idea of one-way interaction bans, especially because of ideological opposition over a wide range of articles. Horologium (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The case for a bidirectional interaction ban as proposed by several users has not been made. Judging from the diffs presented, the hounding is coming from Belchfire, not Roscelese. The suggestion that the hounding victim deserved or provoked the hounding doesn't convince me (to put it mildly). Belchfire needs to adjust his behavior and stop hounding Roscelese. Warnings didn't help, perhaps an interaction ban will. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, regardless of the fact that it would be a "one-way" interaction ban. There is a real issue with blaming the target even in clear hounding cases. In this case, the edits clearly show one editor following a good faith editor around the project. The end result is disruptive and the fact that we allow these cases to escalate all too often has a very poisonous effect on the project. jæs (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The complaints that a One-way iBan is not symmetric and opens the door to gaming are hogwash. It has already been demonstrated that Roscelese does not want to interact with Belchfire. It logically makes sense that Roscelese has self imposed a interaction ban on themselves, therefore the only thing the community needs to do is to involuntarily clap the irons on Belchfire. If Roscelese begins using the sanctions to eject Belchfire out of the topic in a form of WP:OWN we can revisit the sanctions at that time. Throwing the Baby out with the bath water is not the solution. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• This shouldn't even have gotten this far. If I'd seen this blatant hounding prior to it getting to ANI (where the response has been absolutely predictable, especially who is showing up to oppose any action) I'd have issued a block. Frankly, there is no need for a "one-way interaction ban" here: we just need to start enforcing our existing rules on hounding. Let's just call this Belchfire's final warning, with a week off the next time he finds his way to a random page off his usual beaten track to revert or otherwise get in Roscelese's face. That's what the ban would be in effect anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I think the mechanics of one-way interaction bans would be improved if there were an explicit condition that if the one who was allowed to chose to initiate contact, the other would be allowed to respond in kind (which is most likely moot in this particular case as Roscelese clearly wants nothing to do with Belchfire). That way, we wouldn't be getting bogged down on something like this when it is clear sanctions of some sort ought to be implemented. Kansan (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• IBAN policy: For those who are questioning whether Wikipedia allows single-person interaction bans, I have started a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Single-person interaction bans. Feel free to surf over there and voice your concerns. Note that the current IBAN wording alternates between singular and plural, which is why I concluded that a unilateral IBAN is possible; an alternate to dual IBANs. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• General comment: I haven't reviewed the specifics of this dispute, but in my experience, a one-way interaction ban is sometimes justified. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian, a decision that I wrote. In that case, the alternative to a one-way interaction ban would not have been a two-way interaction ban, but an outright site-ban for the party at fault. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Brad. It's not unusual to include as an unblock condition, for example, a requirement that the unblocked editor leave another editor alone. There's no reason we as a community can't simply say "Person A, stop bothering Person B." That's all a one-way interaction ban really is. 28bytes (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Need help with an impending religious POV dispute

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

---

I hope this isn't too pre-emptive for ANI, but User:Nickidewbear has made some edits to Messianic Judaism that unquestionably violate both WP:POV and WP:OR. I despise ANI and drama in all its forms but, based on my past interactions with this user (which unfortunately entailed edit warring and personal attacks on his/her part), I can say with complete certainty that this isn't going to be resolved by any means short of admin intervention. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The edits: [13] and [14], and a revert: [15]. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The article had clear Anti-Messianic bias, accusing Messianic Jews (of which I am one) who share their faith (per 1 Corinthians 3:5-7 and Romans 10:17) of proselytizing--which, per 1 Corinthians 3:5-7, Messianic Jews do not do. According to Webster's, proselytizing is " to induce someone to convert to one's faith". Messianic Jews believe that conversion is between the individual and God and do not force anyone to convert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickidewbear (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to find external sources that support that. Quoting from dictionaries and the Bible does not qualify. It would need to come from some reliable source commenting on this sect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nickidwbear. Please note that you cannot edit Wikipedia based upon what you "know" to be true. You must cite reliable sources that explicitly verify your claims. Evanh2008, jumping immediately to ANI was very inappropriate; don't forget that most new users have never heard of WP:V and our other similar policies. Before I became a regular WP editor, it would have seemed "obvious" to me that I could add information that I "knew" to be true. Let's try to educate new users before automatically assuming, after just two edits, that administrative action is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been around for nearly 4 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, like I said, previous interaction with this user is what led me to come here so soon. I and others have gone over the relevant policies with him/her repeatedly over the course of more than two years. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to Evanh2008--I was commenting here while doing something else, and didn't adequately examine the history, and misread your comment. I've struck part of my comment above, and will refrain from further commenting until I can give this more attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Gtwfan52 has already reverted and posted a talk page comment explaining the issue, and what needs to be done in order to address the concerns. Basically, he has already done our job here, and I suggest everyone involved just move the discussion over there. As he points out, Nick* might be completely right but it needs proper sourcing. As the edits were made in good faith, and it was reverted in good faith, we just follow WP:BRD by taking it there and closing this out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, Nickidewbear has refused to engage in any discussion, and has proceeded to create the exact same types of disruption at two other articles. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Also see conversations and warnings on her talk page and conversation on my talk. Add this, and the edit summaries showing a total lack of clue, to the history of blocks for exactly the same behavior, and you have an editor that needs serious re-education. Sadly, I would like to see a block extended until the editor shows an understanding of the problems associated with her edits, or possibly a topic ban on articles relating to Judaism, broadly interperted to include anti-Semantic organizations such as Nazi Party. Will notify user as soon as this is saved. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Another example of lack of clue: 9. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To accuse me of being an Anti-Semitic Nazi who needs a re-education is obnoxious, to say the least. First of all, the Nazis were National Socialists (not rightist at all). Second, I am a Messianic Jew. Thirdly, I get that your Far-Left, Anti-Messianic viewpoint can't handle what I just mentioned or that "Levitsky"s, "Kogon"s, etc. are Jewish even when they don't fit your mold. Also, you won't let me cite Nehemia Gordon as a legitimate critic of the Talmud--that's obnoxious of you.Nickidewbear (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet another. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

An ancillary dialogue can be found here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My last comment on this issue tonight is simply a request to whichever admin happens to come across this first. I ask that Nickidewbear not be indefinitely blocked at the moment, as I do believe he/she will be able to be reasoned with after a cool-down period of several days. I've dealt with Nazis before, and this ain't one. G'night, all. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See [16] for a further example of this editors mind-set. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I have the greatest respect for Evan's work on the project, I disagree. Considering the long term pattern of obstructive and uncollaborative editing this editor has engaged in, I think a block that stays until he/she can show an understanding of the problem is completely appropriate. As I have to be in a real courtroom to argue real life issues in about 10 hours, I too am going to call it a night. Thanks to all the participants here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Bluerim

Over the past few days, User:Bluerim returned from about a 20 day break from Wikipedia and reverted changes that I made to the article (List of God of War characters and reversion history) that were based on a discussion asking for outside opinions on what to do (as these issues have been going on for the past few months and I've had two RFCs and Third Opinions requested but none helped because Bluerim couldn't accept what they had to say). I had also corrected some sources on the page which he reverted and has done in every revert (for which he said "Sources can be corrected" but keeps reverting them). He claims he's making corrections or improvements but he's doing the same revert, with maybe small differences if there are any. There's been a discussion on the Talk page (titled Outside comments/opinions) for about a month. Bluerim's changes and reversions are contradicting some of the things brought up. Another editor (User:Sjones23) reverted him for the same reason I have: the discussion post. I today added a new section to the article (which has been long overdue) and added information to the lead because of it. Bluerim reverted back to his version before Sjone's revert (although he retained the new section) and hid his reversion by only claiming that he made corrections to the lead, the new section, and added "one word" to another section. I feel that Bluerim's reversions are disruptive and are making it hard to improve the article. There's a discussion on the Talk page but he either doesn't post or he leaves short comments and doesn't answer questions or doesn't fully explain himself which can be seen in his most recent post there. This is also not the first time I've had to report this user for similar conduct. --JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk page I'm not seeing inappropriate behavior by Bluerim. There's nothing wrong with short comments -- we actually have an essay Be concise encouraging them. NE Ent 12:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much for the short comments, it's the fact he avoided answering my posts, and his short comments don't really say much. If you see here, I left comments that I would have liked to have had answers to. Instead of answering or responding, Bluerim made this reversion to the article (which is what I was referring to about hiding his other revert) and made this post on the Talk page which did not answer any of my questions, nor did it provide or help with anything to solve the issues. Also, did you check the reversion history of the article itself? That's really where the disruption is. --JDC808 ♫ 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And he's reverted the page again, claiming I'm the only one who has issues, despite the fact another editor reverted him for the same reasons I have. The biggest problem with this user is that he is very hard to work with for consensus building because he keeps reverting and resists community input (as noted by the RFCs and Third Opinions on the Talk page, where practically all of the outside editors agreed with my points but Bluerim challenged their opinion which is why we're still having these issues). This has been an ongoing issue with this user for months and it's really ridiculous. As mentioned before, I've had to report this user for similar conduct as seen here which links the three previous reports prior to that one. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should contact an administrator about this matter, since edit warring can make things worse, which is why it is not tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, to take a look at this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring is not acceptable. However, a failure to accurately read the situation is also not good. Bluerim (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As per edit warring comment, then why did you keep reverting when you knew there was a discussion on those issues? As per other comment, that's why there are links provided. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The link JDC808 provides above as a "revert" is actually an edit. NE Ent 02:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one? --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This link. By the way, as Bbb23 does not have enough time to review this thread, I've asked another uninvolved administrator, PresN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to give his thoughts on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was that one? If you look at the last three changes, I made a revert at 10:04 November 25th, then Bluerim reverted that at 12:01 November 26th, which is what you just linked (notice mine is +2,841 and his is -2,841). I believe NE Ent was talking about this one. It actually is a revert (technically a revert with an added edit). Look at the differences between this revert and this one (the one I believe NE Ent was referring). They're identical reversions with the exception of in the latter, Bluerim reverted my additions to the lead (which made the lead the same as the first reversion) and he made two minor edits to the new section. And so it's clear, there are three intermediate edits between those two: your first revert of Bluerim, me adding the new section, and then me editing the lead because I added new section. And okay about the admin. --JDC808 ♫ 05:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then, I apologize for my comment about the link above. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just making sure everything's clear. --JDC808 ♫ 05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, then. While we are still waiting for the administrator to respond, based on the relevant differences provided above, I think that Bluerim refuses to get the point. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am not going to have time to review this thread today. So, either another admin will have to, or given that this appears to be principally about edit-warring, the report could be taken to WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I "get the point" - my latest edits to the article do incorporate some suggestions. There are, however, some weaknesses with the other additions. In short, the article reads less like a piece of prose and more like a fan entry. The issue I have here is that one over-committed editor can't see the compromise, which was possibly not helped by another editor who may not have the experience to see the process. Yet another editor had no issue with my recent post on the Talk page, and stated brevity was fine. I can elaborate, but hope for some more flexibility. JD means well, but his writing does need work and he just needs to haul back a tad (a la the string of attempted complaints and comments on my Talk Page, such as "being left not choice"). Let's work together without melodrama. It can be done.

Bluerim (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, JDC808 is not overcommitted (I feel that this is unfounded) and the problem here is that you were edit warring while discussion was taking place, and please do not make unfounded assumptions about JDC808. Since your edits created controversy, a discussion was necessary according to the rules and common sense. Unfortunately, you also seem to have ignored good faith community concerns and consensus as relevant on the talk page of the God of War characters article. As visible in Talk:List of God of War characters, there are discussions such as an RFC, which led to community consensus amongst uninvolved editors. I also feel that Bluerim is being a little disruptive, which according to this policy, is valid, fulfilling 3 out of the 6 criteria that defines disruptive editing. Also, we should consider listen to outside opinions of others who have commented on the talk page and take these into account. I would like to quote the definition of WP:IDHT:

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

I am still waiting for administrator input about this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:Escarlati

I have a dicussion with User talk:Enric Naval here and here.

User talk:Enric Naval calls for "support" of User:Escarlati here.

User:Escarlati, in spanish, make a personal attack over me, and say that he do not wants to talk by reason of language limitation here. Then User:Escarlati reverts all my editions (whatever article). I try to talk with he, here[17], but he not say nothing, and whatever article he say in diff 'statu quo ante' and only reverts my editions. He reverts me in many articles:

• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]

--Santos30 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Disruptive editor is Santos30. Santos30 being carried out in several articles and editions massive edit wars to defend a non-neutral POVwarrior, editions which was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia. Now move your warrior Pov this by cross-wiki wikipedia. I request for measures against Santos30 for these actions disruptive and undermine the statu quo ante and viewpoint neutral. I'm sorry my English is not good, because I use a translator. Escarlati (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No. This is totally false and another personal attack.--Santos30 (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The logs tell us that you have a SUL account and that as Santos30 (talk · contribs) you are indeed blocked indefinitely, for abuse of multiple accounts where the master account is Domenico (talk · contribs), on the Spanish Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• My mistake, the case is here, I was a retired User and I not inform of changes in my nick User. But what User:Escarlati say is false and is another personal attack, never I was blocked for " massive edit wars" or "POV warrior". User:Escarlati came here to make personal attacks and reverts me (User:Escarlati not talk and not give bibliography) as you can see in the diffs. User:Escarlati say that he can not talk in english, but quickly he came here to try to silence me with administrative actions similar as censure in Wikipedia spanish (you can read it in spanish).

If User:Escarlati does not want to talk or give bibliography, then he should not reverts me here in wikipedia english ( anything or whatever says or do in wikipedia español, wrong or right ). I do not want an administrative action for no user, I want to be free to make editions or talk in discussion.--Santos30 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User Santos30 is engaging in a reversion-war and trying to impose his point of view. He just placed a non-neutrality template in the article on the Crown of Aragón which should be removed because he is the only one claiming that it is not neutral. [27]--Maragm (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

False. The imposed point of view is in the last edition of User:Escarlati [28]. He delete my bibliography and not gives any other reference. Template is placed 24 hours after I explain in the talk my reason of the template here. Nobody answer the talk. No bibliography to clarify in the article. --Santos30 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, after this talk User:Eric Naval answer here. I keep waiting for User:Escarlati here--Santos30 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30, you were given many sources at Spanish wikipedia and then here at English wikipedia. All users at Spanish wikipedia agreed to use the Cross of Burgundy for the Spanish Empire and its colonies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had hopes that Santos30 was a reasonable editor. But his last edits and POV-pushing in talk pages have exhausted my patience. Santos30 is not here to write an encyclopedia, he is here to glorify Castile and remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy. He keeps modifying related articles to support his POV, which makes it even more difficult to detect the problems. He is a pseudohistoric troll, and he needs to be blocked and reverted. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You should see first for articles that must to be clarified. Why you not look for the missing bibliography here and stop your personal attacks and stop looking for my punishment?. Im not here to "glorify Castile" and "remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy". Im here understand and share my knowledge of Latin American independence. But I see those articles of colonial viceroyalty with mistaken or confused or POV information and I try to clarify.--Santos30 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We achieved some understanding in Treaty of Villafáfila and Council of Castile. Probably because there are sources that explicitly cite exact dates with meridian clarity. Which means that you can't push your preferred dates. But as soon as there is some ambiguity, or a way to twist sources into saying things that they don't say, we get lockdowns, edit warring and tendentious picking and interpretation of sources. I am not willing to spend hours and hours collecting sources and quotes, only to have you cherrypick a few sources that don't really support your changes, followed by a return to your original position and edit-warring to restore bad sources and remove good ones.

Some examples:

• this revert was specially annoying because it removed a couple of hours of solid work for no good reason.

• this revert introduced wholly incorrect flag and coat. He already edit-warred the similar changes in Spanish wikipedia as his alter ego Domenico [29][30][31][32]. Needless to say, the changes didn't stick. In the Spanish wikipedia he was less sophisticated and it's easier to see that one of his main motivations is the glorification of Castile (the other one is his hate towards the Cross of Burgundy flag)

• [33]. He replaces 2 contemporary books with a 1835 biased political pamphlet. In the talk page he refuses to acknowledge the problems with the source. He had already editwarred over those dates with an IP, causing the protection of the article. In a last attempt to compromise, I started a RfC, I expect a tsunami of wikilawyering over it. He demands an arbitrarily high sourcing standard for the date he doesn't like, refuses to compromise, refuses to acknowledge the flagrant logic flaws in his position, refuses to acknowledge all the sources that give a different date, etc. He neglected to mention that his attempts to put the same date in the Spanish wikidia were all reverted [34][35][36][37] and that he failed to provide any source that supported his position, and that he didn't address any of the obvious flaws with that position.

• [38][39][40][41][42] Changes Cross of Burgundy to push back the usage of the flag a few centuries and claim that it only had military usages. When I tried to fix it he tried to restore his POV with "clarifications"[43][44][45]. In Spanish wikipedia he removed historical references because they made clear that his POV was incorrect[46], this change stuck during months.

• [47][48][49][50] Repeated attempts to remove the historical relevance of the Cross of Burgundy in Flag of Florida. Now he has returned to his original position using a compilation of sources that don't really support his position, in Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag. Of course, he ignores the sources that directly and clearly contradict his position, which were given to him months ago.

• [51] Flag of Mexico was given an incorrect flag in order to remove any mention to the Cross of Burgundy. Another manipulation that went unnoticed for months.

Santos30 started in Talk:Spanish_Empire, when I tried to fix his POV pushing it propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Castile#abolishment_date, Talk:New_Spain#flag_was_the_.22estandarte_virreinal.22, Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag and Cross of Burgundy, and now it's propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Aragon#Sovereignty_and_Independence. It also affects the flags and coats of arms in Spanish_Empire, Flag_of_Spain#Cross_of_Burgundy and several articles in Category:Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire.

Santos30 opened this thread because his latest wave of tendentiously-sourced POV-pushing was reverted. Again. He already tried to make many of these changes in the Spanish wikipedia, where he failed to convince anyone and refused to acknowledge an expert opinion that he asked for himself. He doesn't want to be blocked for edit-warring for WP:3RR, so he comes to ANI to cry foul. I have a small hope that a good WP:BOOMERANG happens here. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Escarlati says another time in my discussion that he does not want to talk about article.[52]--Santos30 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

someone keeps defacing John Giuca's article

Problems with potential libel in a biography of a living person go on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Valeness

User's sole contributions are inappropriate non-notable articles that appear to be attempts at translation from the Japanese Wikipedia. User has not replied to several CSD notifications.

Contributions (no diffs as articles have been deleted) ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 21:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• As far I can see, he just appears as a new editor that needs some guidance on how to contribute to the project. No voluntary disruption here. Have you tried to discuss with them about these problems before this report? Cavarrone (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. While I can only see his latest contribution, what I gather from that is something much closer to failure to understand Wikipedia guidelines than willful or blatant misconduct. A few {{uw-create}} warnings and references to the relevant guidelines are surely in order, but my opinion is that blocking should be a last resort for good-faith editors, just as it's normally only a fifth resort for bad-faith ones. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• I indeffed him. Admittedly, I did so before I knew this topic had been opened, but he has created four inappropriate articles in quick succession, including one twice. The articles are ridiculous and border on vandalism/trolling. The last one, which I speedily deleted, is particularly absurd. The first section starts with: "Ok, the reason you can't find much on this guy is that he is only listed in the Japanese Wikipedia. Now, Google Translate does a rough job of Japanese translating, but, this is what I have gathered:" And then he puts in what he gathered - here's a tidbit: "after he graduated from his university he saw a bike wreck in the F1 races, and was inspired to draw comics again". The second section, entitled Clarification, starts with: "I know a bit of Japanese and agree with your translation for the most part." And here's a tidbit from the second section: "Probably, he was depressed as he was writing the beginning of this manga. And only because of it's success has he and maybe consequentially Yuu crawled out of a hole. Maybe his fans saved him. It's interesting to think that if he wasn't as successful, maybe the story would have had a much darker ending."

Now, if an admin feels I was wrong to indef Valeness, by all means undo it and engage the editor in a dialog about how to edit at Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm too cynical.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I reported him here as it's not appropriate for AIV and based on the contributions I had seen prior to them being CSD'd, including the contribution mentioned in detail above. There's no value in offering input where you aren't in possession of the full facts. People are able to continue to disrupt when we get mired in opinion. Thanks. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just in case you think I was criticizing you for reporting the editor here, I wasn't. Actually, I think it was a good thing to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Insults regarding my ethnicity

IP 94.197.127.102 ([53]) isulted me for my ethnicity calling me a nationalist with chaivinistic views regarding the Muslims.

This user's edit is against Wikipedia's ruls. Moreover, I think he is banned User:San culottes with multiple sock puppets and with similiar rethoric.

--Wüstenfuchs 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Had the IP omitted the phrase "bizzare and embarrassing East European ethno-nationalistic" the comment would have been fine, just discussion of a content dispute.

If you can point to other diffs supporting your allegations of sock puppetry and ban evasion, please help us out by doing so. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the first sock puppet investigation [54]. As you may see, the user is involved in the same topic and has the same interest for my user account, as he already knows I'm Eastern European, don't know how. --Wüstenfuchs 23:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, SC is not WP:BANned, and he isn't even WP:BLOCKed anymore [55]. As for how he might have guessed at your geographical origins, it's really not so hard at all if you look at your "linguistic tics" (rather Slavic) as well as your other areas of interest (Balkans especially). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but what about those two edits [56]; [57]

Earlier sock puppet of cullotes (Arabic name) and this IP made the same edit. --Wüstenfuchs 23:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC

Also to add, he made other puppet also when he wasn't banned... San culottes was banned for hours, but he made other two user pages as well, even though his earlier account recieved a block lift. --Wüstenfuchs 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What is a San cullote? Also, who cares what fox user's ehnicity is? I don't know or care. Stop putting it out there bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.102 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See Sans-culottes. And also The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, a "sans-culotte" is anyone who doesn't wear culottes - and they're my kind of people. I much prefer people to wear either shorts or skirts, coulottes are just so boring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, see also L.H.O.O.Q. And preemptively: cluttering up WP:AN/I with ridiculously erudite cross-languages jokes? Shome mishtake, shurely?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Hughes (critic)

• Robert Hughes (critic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• DownUndr (talk · contribs)

User has a long term involvement with this article; WP:OWNERSHIP and very nearly WP:SPA seem likely, as does WP:COI. Edits of the last few weeks, culminating in today's edit warring, have centered on persistent addition of unsourced cause of death, with an interest in promoting the reputation of Hughes's last wife [58], [59], [60]. Some previous edits introduced or retained controversial unsourced content, including BLP violations [61], [62]. Discussion has been attempted here [63], and at previous sections of the article talk page [64], [65], as well as at the user's talk page [66], to no avail. JNW (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The activity has stopped for now. I have watch-listed the page, and I expect several others will also help keep an eye on things for the next while. -- Dianna (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. At this point that sounds just right. JNW (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This IP address gave me threat: 46.208.56.35

This IP address gave me a threat. how can I block him?: 46.208.56.35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesapper12 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are an administrator (and you are not), you are not able to block users, anonymous or otherwise. I imagine an admin will be along shortly to review the situation, but I wanted to note that I have notified the user in question of this thread. Please do that yourself next time. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

From this IP address no threat was given to anyone any time. Rather Bluesapper12 is attacking on the pages. All are requested to watch and take necessary steps against vandalism-oriented accounts including Bluesapper12. Thanks. 46.208.56.35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.56.35 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the benefit of passing admins, this is the comment to which Bluesapper12 is referring. Stalwart111 04:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• This was his response on TheJJJunk's talk page after a couple of warnings were issued to Bluesapper12 for removing content. I have notified TheJJJunk of this thread. Stalwart111 04:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• This wasn't a threat, it was a poorly worded drive by comment. No one has explained how this IP is supposed to be User:TheJJJunk, although a first glance at the grammar would indicate it isn't likely. And thanks Stalwart for digging up the diff, that does make things easier. I've also reverted the move of the page Moeen U Ahmed to Wikipedia:Moeen U Ahmed (no redirect), which was done by Bluesapper12. That was an inappropriate move and might be seen as disruptive. Don't do that. Use the talk page, and stop reverting back and forth, or it might look like you are edit warring. Use the talk page and discuss, because I'm off to bed and I would hate to see a boomerang when I wake up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was suggested the IP and JJJ were the same - JJJ warned Bluesapper, the IP added a comment (both on Bluesapper's page) and Bluesapper responded to both on JJJ's talk page and here, then removed the note to JJJ. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. - Stalwart111 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I am not the IP. I reverted edits by Bluesapper which removed content on two different pages, and he left me a message explaining why he removed them. I told Bluesapper that if he had an issue with sourced content, then he should start a discussion on the articles' talk pages. [67] Then he left me another message [68] with a heading of "Abusing me in Wikipedia" explaining that "some users are saying that they will punish me." He told me to "Please convey this message to them:"

Listen you thieves of Bangladesh Nationalist Party, I do not give a damn about Moien U Ahmed. I only care about the truth. Interpol is searching for corrupt BNP leaders.

It seems as though he/she was asking me for help. I have never interacted with Bluesapper on Wikipedia before or after I reverted the edits he/she made in the first place. — JJJ (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Mormonism and polygamy

There is an edit war in progress at Mormonism and polygamy regarding the wording of the opening sentence of the article. An IP editor made a change, which was reverted twice; the material was subsequently reinstated by a logged-in editor. I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to review the matter. Thanks. — Richwales 05:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor replaced a citation from a historical encyclopedia article published by a university with a statement about a reality TV series here. 72Dino (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears as though 'the historical encyclopedia article published by a university' confirms what the IP address is trying to change the article to say: that Mormons still practice Polygamy. http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/p/POLYGAMY.html The original link does not lead directly to this page. A reader has to click through to find the cited entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumbnails72 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the reference, it depends on your definition of "Mormon". If you mean a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then no, they have not practiced polygamy for over 100 years. If you mean a fundamentalist group, then yes, some of those do still practice it. The wording was changed, but the original reference was removed. There was no reason to remove a reliable source citation and replace it with "as witnessed in the popular reality television show Sister Wives". 72Dino (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As I read the above-linked Utah History Encyclopedia page, it says that (1) some plurally married husbands and wives, originally married before 1904, continued to live together until the 1950s; and (2) various fundamentalist groups have continued to practise polygamy, breaking with and excommunicated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the church commonly known as the "Mormon" or "LDS" Church). I don't see anything in this source which would suggest that polygamy continues today amongst members in good standing of the LDS Church. Amongst "fundamentalist groups", yes, but as 72Dino pointed out, these are not part of the LDS Church — the latter strongly disassociates itself from them and their members. — Richwales 18:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This particular edit warring incident appears, for the moment, to have subsided. There is, of course, always the possibility that something will pop up again, either on this or related articles. Looking toward the future, I would encourage some uninvolved admins to get more involved with watching this page and related pages (such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Mormon fundamentalism, and anything else that strikes their fancy). — Richwales 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Grebe11

Grebe11 (talk · contribs) is a vandal only account, repeated in quick succession repeated the same type of vandalism at Betelgeuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . See vandalism 1 and vandalism 2 two minutes later.

-- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Normally, you want to take vandalism to WP:AIV, not here. That said, I blocked him for 31 hours, although I don't have high hopes that his contribs will improve after the block expires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked

I would like to get some administrative oversight a recurring problem I have been having with the user Tristan noir.

He/she has apparently had a Wikipedia account for over four years, but until very recently had only ever edited one article, Tanka prose which he/she had created and was the sole significant contributor for. (The sole exception was adding a spam-like link to the Haibun article.[69])

The article made ridiculous claims about Japanese literature, and was based almost exclusively on the works of the Lulu-published poet Jeffrey Woodward. The earliest version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article, and its bibliography included a book edited by Woodward that hadn't been published yet. Assuming good faith, when I first came across the article, I thought "tanka prose" was an inaccurate/fringe translation of the term uta monogatari, and so I moved the page there.[70]

He/she initially tried to blankly revert my edits, still refusing to cite reliable secondary sources[71], and I reverted back [72]. This led to a long dispute with the editor on the article's talk page. The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks against me.[73][74]

He/she appears to have also brought in a fellow SPA account to whom he/she is connected in the real world to form a tag team; it is difficult to believe that the latter user just happened across the dispute less than two days after it started.[75]

Eventually, I proposed a compromise with the user that he/she create an article on so-called "tanka prose" that didn't claim to be about classical Japanese.[76] The user agreed to this[77], but then went on and made an article that basically made the same ridiculous claims as before.[78] I removed the most offensive parts of the article, but the user continued to attack me and defend his/her right to post fringe theories about Japanese literature, as well as advertisements for Mr. Woodward's publications, on the article's talk page.[79][80][81][82][83][84][85]

Eventually I got tired of the dispute and I nominated the article for deletion. The user continued to rely almost exclusively on personal attacks in his/her comments in defense of the article there.[86] One other user, Stalwart111 expressed a similar view to me on that discussion, and was subsequently accused of being my sock-puppet.[87]

Consensus was ultimately reached that the subject was not notable enough to merit its own article, but some material may be merged into the article Tanka in English at a later date.

During the time in between my proposal of a compromise and the user's creation of the new article, he/she posted more promotional links/information for Woodward publications to the Haibun article.[88] I ultimately got into a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page over whether such links qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE.

Since the effective deletion of the Tanka prose article, the user has been engaging in a campaign to undermine my edits on other pages, such as Index of literary terms[89][90] and Haiga[91][92], where he/she continued to try to promote fringe ideas propagated in the works of his/her favourite authors.

While the initial dispute over "tanka prose" was going on, I created a user-essay in my userspace under the title User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique, in which I questioned Woodward's reliability as a source for Wikipedia. It was misplaced, and really should have been put on WP:RSN, but at the time I was not aware of the noticeboard. Recently, the user made an attempt (without ever consulting me prior) to have the page speedily deleted on shoddy grounds of it being at "attack page" and "misleading"; the request was rejected, and the user was told to put it up for deletion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique. There, the user basically posted the same flawed arguments against the page as before[93]; however, User:Uzma Gamal pointed out that the page should be deleted and if necessary Mr. Woodward should be put on WP:RSN.[94] In light of this, I posted a comment that I would not be opposed to deletion, since my page was by then out-of-date and no longer really needed to exist.[95] The page ultimately got deleted, of course, because I was the page's creator and was not opposed to deletion. However, the fact remains that the user in question clearly made the request for deletion in order to make a point and undermine me, and he/she should have discussed the page's content with me on my talk page or on the page's talk page (he/she never attempted such).

User:Stalwart111 there suggested posting a notice about Tristan noir's behaviour here[96], and so I have done so. I hope someone can provide some insight or assistance in dealing with this user, who has been posting spam on several Wikipedia articles over the past few months, and regularly attempting to undermine my edits.

elvenscout742 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I've said all I have to say about Tristan noir on the aforementioned MFD here. I maintain Tristan noir is simply not here to build WP and he has consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Admins can make a judgement for themselves. Stalwart111 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Violations of 3rr, Addition of Unsourced Content, Attacking other Editors

Hello! I came here to bring User:86.17.19.215 to your attention. They have been warned multiple times on various issues and as you can see on their contributions have been attacking other editors and continually reverting good faith edits on multiple pages. They have been adding unsourced content and removing sourced content. Could an admin decide what to do about this editor? Thank you! Vacation^nine 13:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Vacation9, It's not the usual practice to issue a 3RR warning on an editor's talk page and then file a report on AN/I six minutes later, if the editor in question hasn't made any intervening edits or response to the warning.

Looking at the 'multiple warnings' on 86.17's user talk page, I see two warnings for 'vandalism' from Raptor232, but I am unable to locate anything that looks like vandalism—instead, Raptor232 and 86.17 appear to be on opposite sides of a content dispute at Maldives. Notably, neither Raptor232 nor 86.17 (nor any other editor of that article) has seen fit to use the article talk page, instead engaging in a series of unexplained, undiscussed reverts (4 by 86.17, 3 by Raptor232, 1 by another editor) over the last eleven days.

86.17 also appears to be involved in a content dispute at Caucasus; at least on that talk page there seems to be some discussion with the other editor (Chipmunkdavis) on the article's talk page.

Convenience links:

• 86.17.19.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Raptor232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vacation9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Caucasus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In short, I don't think that any of the participants here have exactly covered themselves in glory. Slapping threatening templates on an IP editor's talk page isn't a substitute for actually engaging with them, especially when the opening volley involve unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith (vandalism). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I know that the listing was done shortly after the 3rr. But the editor has violated it multiple times. Not to mention unsourced content addition and attacks. In these serious cases, why do warnings matter? Vacation^nine 22:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to discuss the issues in Raptor232's version of the article on the talk page multiple times. He refuses to engage and simply reverts any changes to his work and dismisses them as vandalism. His original version is biased, unsourced and sarcastic. I don't know what the mediation process is when a user is being uncommunicative like that, so I was hoping it would come to someone's attention sooner or later. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV protocol not being adhered by user TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

WikiPedia Team: I'm bringing to your notice persistent violation of NPOV protocol by the user TheRedPenOfDoom. TheRedPenOfDoom is removing any citation that puts Bunker Roy and the Barefoot College in a negative spotlight at the expense of truth. Kindly compare my change to the Returned Awards section with the recent revert by TheRedPenOfDoom. TheRedPenOfDoom appears to be working for Bunker Roy / Barefoot College. If TheRedPenOfDoom wants to challenge my decision to x-reference the Architexturez site, then he can x-reference the Frontline URL. TheRedPenOfDoom is deliberately using a x-reference that knocks off the punch from the controversy. Northerncreek (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In the example you give, TheRedPenOfDoom is correct in reverting you. He uses the direct (and reliable source), you use an indirect source that first references the source used by TheRedPenOfDoom, and then goes on to discuss a number of different issues, all negative about the subject. You seem to want to misuse the source to push that additional information, not to correctly source the article. Therefor, you are the one violating WP:NPOV, not TheRedPenOfDoom.

If the information in your source is reliable, and important enough to include in the article, then write a section in the article about it, and use the source for that section. Don't sneak it in through the backdoor. Obviously, considering the disagreement that already exists, you shouldn't simply create such a section though, but discuss it at the talk page of the article (or at other appropriate venues like the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard) and get consensus for your proposed changes. Fram (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Because of the previous incident, still visible higher up on this page, I filed a CU request here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertRosen. I could be wrong. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it - they appear to be meat puppets at the very least. GiantSnowman 14:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please go ahead and do a CheckUser at your heart's desire. Because I'm not a Sockpuppet of RobertRosen, I will come out clean. Maybe TheRedPenOfDoom has got confused looking at a sudden interest in Bunker Roy / Barefoot College. But he needs to think with a clear head before reverting my edits.Northerncreek (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There's assuming good faith and not biting the newbies; but there's also not enabling a deceptive sockpuppetteer. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

IP: 82.3.94.209 adding abuse to the Nadine Dorries article

IP User 82.3.94.209 has a history of disruptive editing over the last couple of months resulting in blocks. It now looks as though this behaviour is being carried over to the article on prominent British MP Nadine Dorries. Philip Cross (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning and will monitor - but you have not attempted to discuss the matter with the IP other than via edit summaries. You should also take this kind of report to WP:AIV rather than ANI in future. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunate delay adding the notice. Thanks for the point. Philip Cross (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've put the article on semi-protection for a week. Let's hope that the controversy regarding Dorries' recent appearance on a certain reality show will die down in a week or so. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Gideon Sundback and user:88.235.145.5

User:88.235.145.5 has been repeatedly vandalizing Gideon Sundback. Maybe some cooling-off time is in order? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As per the top of the page, normally WP:AIV is to report vandalism and WP:RFPP for page protection: although I have dealt with it from both perspectives. Note: we don't do "cooling off" blocks, and you are required to advise them that you have reported them here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Could we add a few more steps to the procedure for reporting serial vandalism, since this only took me through a dozen pages? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bishonen

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

---

Bishonen (talk · contribs) is calling other IP editors "anonymous cowards" in violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Should I expect at least a polite warning against Bishonen not to do things like that? Or should I expect to be flogged just for editing unregistered, like the other IP? --213.168.72.45 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't "for no other reason than them editing unregistered", my brave fellow. It was for somebody (who obviously knew too much about Wikipedia to have edited only as an IP with 18 edits) choosing make a controversial post logged out. Your own list of contributions is quite interesting, too. What's your main account? Bishonen | talk 19:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

my brave fellow -- I didn't expect you would stoop to repeating your ABF personal attack. More importantly however, there is a huge difference between e.g. politely noting that given the context of AC elections, IP comments may be assigned less weight by some -- and simply assuming a bad faith contribution and calling IP editors "anonymous cowards".

It was for somebody (who obviously knew too much about Wikipedia to have edited only as an IP with 18 edits) -- I take it you have never heard of dynamically assigned IP addresses. I do not have an account, but thanks for repeating your blanket ABF against IP editors a third consecutive time. --213.168.72.45 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you asking for here? What are you asking administrators to do? I can't see a darn thing that would be worth doing here, except to tell you to get over it. A slightly snarky comment was made to someone who is very knowledgeable about Arbcom for an anon with 18 edits, drawing the obvious conclusion. If Bish was mistaken, she was mistaken. You have now told her of her error, if that is what it was. There is nothing more to do here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Or should I expect to be flogged just for editing unregistered, like the other IP? -- Guess I have my answer.

What should be done here? A warning should be issued to Bishonen against assuming bad faith and against making personal attacks. "Slightly snarky" is your own personal assessment which I do not share.

someone who is very knowledgeable about Arbcom for an anon with 18 edits, drawing the obvious conclusion -- Again, dynamically assigned IPs. That's the "obvious conclusion" for anyone assuming good faith.

If Bish was mistaken, she was mistaken. -- Like I pointed out, Bishonen could and should have worded that comment much more considerately. Saying something like "Just in case you are a registered user editing logged out right now, please log in and sign your comment because under the circumstances of an AC election, IP comments will be given less credence and weight by many established users." -- That would have been perfectly fine, and it would account for the possibility that the IP is not acting in bad faith. What Bishonen wrote doesn't. Bishonen simply assumed that the IP is a logged out registered user. Bishonen vigorously excluded the possibility that the IP was just maybe acting in good faith.

And finally, KC, you are a wikifriend of "Bish". Shouldn't you openly declare that conflict of interest before jumping to your friend's defense, pretending like you're all neutral on this issue? --87.79.128.230 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right... as a friend, I should warn her - something like "Hey Bish, don't make slightly snarky comments to trolls, they'll eat up ANI and annoy us all" should do nicely. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is all those years I've spent at Slashdot, but I don't see the phrase "Anonymous Coward" as a personal attack. (if you don't know, this usage would be 100% consistent with how it is used there and in other places, a non-logged in user). It isn't the most polite thing to say, but this is certainly below any threshold that would require swift action with the block button. This is the other side of civility that requires we all overlook such little things, simple opinions of others, as focusing on them only distracts from the issue at hand. I will say that any question regarding socking should be directed to WP:SPI rather than here or on the talk page of editors, but again, I don't see anything that demands swift and decisive action here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IP editor is unable to post with their account because it was indeffed some time ago for abuse of editing privileges (including good hand/bad hand and logging out to disrupt) by Elen of the Roads. Risker (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Coincidence: Oddly, I've been seeing another editor use the same green text to highlight words today. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alex Jones (radio host). I'm not motivated enough to see if there is overlap though. Maybe someone else will check. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Why am I not surprised? Troll, indeed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• (1) Shouldn't the IP be blocked for block evasion. (2) Recently blocked disruptive troll User:Shaz0t also used green highlighting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• People, the {{xt}} template and its friends have numerous users, and observing that two people use it on two noticeboards is about as diagnostic as noticing that two editors in this very discussion both know how to use <small>. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, Uncle G is absolutely right. Using green text for quotes is especially common. Or alternatively it's highly significant… because once I used green text and was attacked for doing it as a way of getting at a user with "Green" in their username. My enraged opponent called it a "billion-to-one-coincidence". :-)[97] Similarly, two people both using green text has no significance at all. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

• I said it was a coincidence and freely admitted I hadn't checked for overlap. Not sure where you got the impression there was analysis done. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that this particular troll who appears to hail from Central Europe claims dynamic IPs that are actually assigned as static IPs - for example. Someone who actually has had to make the effort to change IP address (as in this case) is the last person we should be allowing to criticise the use of "anonymous coward" in describing them. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Risker, the IP's account is indeffed. Therefore, the IP should be barred for block evasion. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Blessed be the boomerang! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

IPs still not blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Dol Grenn

Nearly every edit of User:Dol Grenn has to be reverted. The same happens in German Wikipedia. He called my reverts "dumme Reverts" (dumb/stupid reverts) and me an "Arsch" ("ass"). He exchanges words because he does not understand them and tries to "correct" native speakers' grammar. He showed the same behaviour with other pseudonyms or as IP in German wikipedia in the last years. --Eike sauer (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• This certainly is a personal insult.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • … but the third-party intervention at User talk:Eike sauer#Once Upon a Time in Mexico came a week later, and a couple of days ago. Uncle G (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

    You are right, I should have looked at the dates. Indeed, after that the user only made two edits, none of which is criminal. Having said this, I agree with AndyTheGrump that the user has clear problems with English.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dol Grenn certainly seems to have problems with the English language - see e.g. "[The Spanish language] is later moved as originated to South America except Brazil." [98] Move worrying though is this [99], where he removes a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, directed at himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please do something against Eike sauer?! He has reported me again without a warning and just because most of my edits have been reverted by him, gives him the aim that he wants me to get banned. This user needs to be stopped. He is reverting all of my contributions. Can you please punish him? Dol Grenn (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, we cannot, because blocks and sanctions are designed to prevent problems with developing the Encyclopaedia, not retribution and punishment for users. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Try putting this little essay[100] into Google Translate and see how civil it looks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I had to use Google Translate because I didn't recognise several nouns in the original German. Having translated, I can see why I didn't learn them at school. A personal attack is a personal attack, regardless of language. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

His last edits (including the deleted pages) are very clear. So please do not warn him anymore, it's enough with his show. --Eike sauer (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. I will block if nobody has beaten me to it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Just for the record, he has repeatedly created an attack page at User:Eike sauer. If ever there was an editor who needed to be blocked and stay blocked, this is one. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have indeffed, with a caution to any admin who might come across an unblock request in the future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you! --Eike sauer (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking a user

I am writing request that user Mary Cummins [101] be blocked from editing the page Bat World Sanctuary - [102].

I recently won a 6.1 Million dollar judgement for harassment and defamation, and she is now targeting me and my non-profit on Wikipedia. I have sent several emails to your admin requesting our page be deleted entirely to prevent her from adding false and defamatory statements (including accusing me of 'sock puppeting," whatever that is). Please tell me how I can either have my nonprofits page entirely deleted or have her blocked from editing our page. More information on our lawsuit can be viewed here:

[103] [104] [105]

Thank you,

Amanda Lollar Bat World Sanctuary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batworld (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd think it be best if both of you stay away from that article, since you're both connected to it and both have a WP:COI. Have you notified Mary Cummins about this thread? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed Mary Cummins. Glrx (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would ask Batworld to sign their posts with four ~ things, and would suggest that they read WP:OWN. I would point out that I am acting as a neutral party in this matter as regards the off-wiki dispute, and have just declined a speedy deletion request (not posted by Batworld) on the Batworld Sanctuary page, as being made with an inappropriate criterion. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)

Batworld is an inappropriate username and should be changed. A comment about the uname was made on Batworld's talk page, but has been deleted.

Links given above show a judgment against Cummins and a court order to remove material from specific websites. WP is not mentioned in that order. General injunction appears to only cover posts about episiotomy at other websites (such as WP).

Both parties have a COI re editing the page.

Cummins has removed sourced material from BWS that puts BWS in a good light.

Cummins has edited the article to state that the judgment is being appealed. The source is prweb. Generally, prweb would not qualify as an independent source, but it would pass for a simple statements that a judgment is being appealed.

Cummins edited the article so that it admits the judgment but emphasizes her side. (For example, "Cummins stated 'Everything I stated about Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary is 100% the truth backed up with facts and physical evidence.'") Fails NPOV.

Cummins has edited the article to mention a defamation lawsuit by Cummins against Lollar. The source is also prweb. The post is inappropriate news. WP has no secondary source that the lawsuit is significant / due.

Caution both sides about WP:NPOV.

Glrx (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a topic ban on both sides, and someone neutral (no, not me...) to clean up the article to a neutral position. Someone's got to say it. I'm not advocating censorship of the article - but things referenced to PR sites should go ASAP or be referenced properly. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Both have a legal COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually nominated the article for deletion because the two of them had managed to remove all of the information that actually demonstrates notability (and I couldn't find any myself...I think Google News isn't looking at archives as conveniently as it used to). I've rolled it back to the April 2011 version, which was right after the last AfD, and withdrawn my nomination. The lawsuit, as far as I can tell, has not been covered in the press, and so should not be mentioned in the article at all. Both of these people obviously are way way too involved to be editing the article directly. Both either misunderstand Wikipedia policies or don't care about them. They both absolutely need to be topic banned. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just notified of this discussion about me by Wiki. I did not post anything defamatory on the Bat World Sanctuary page. I corrected incorrect items about Bat World and their lawsuit against me. FTR I'm appealing the decision. Appeals Court already over turned the Judge's last order. She sued me for defamation in retaliation for me reporting her to authorities for animal cruelty, neglect and violations of the health code. I am also suing her for defamation in California. Notice that user Bat World Sanctuary has same IP as the other main editor to the page. Here are legal docs from my lawsuit against her [106]

I only corrected incorrect items on the page. For instance they were legally formed in 2010, not 1994. They are not the biggest bat rescue. They only have 350 bats. The Guiness world record for a bat rescue is 1.8 - 2.5 million bats. Amanda Lollar did not go past the ninth grade. She is not a scientist or a scholar as she claimed. Her bat sanctuary is her home in Mineral Wells, Texas. The City and government agencies were complaining about her for over 18 years. I posted all of the reports. She finally sold one of her buildings because of the complaints last January. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The legal documents are not reliable sources on Wikipedia. The lawsuits have never been reported on in the press, and thus cannot be discussed here. The changes you have made are not verified by reliable sources, which is a requirement on Wikipedia. You have your own blog, and "correct" the story based upon what you believe to be the truth there. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized this: both editors are parties to ongoing litigation. WP:NLT says that you can't edit at the same time that litigation is pending. By that rule, both must be either blocked or absolutely topic banned. I've started editing the article, so I'm involved now and will have to ask another admin to do the honors. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Check your sources for info on Bat World. Amanda Lollar who runs Bat World lies to the press. She told the press she graduated from high school. In deposition it turns out she didn't go past the ninth grade. Most items in the press are things she told the press herself. They are not accurate. I feel that the Bat World Sanctuary page should not include anything about the ongoing litigation by either party. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I will block both users until they can assure us they will not edit the article in question while the case and any appeal is ongoing. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Both blocks enacted. If either gives a convincing assurance that they will not further edit the article while litigation is ongoing, any admin should please feel free to unblock without reference to me. I would support a topic ban should either/both be unblocked but it seemed most prudent to enact the block immediately to stop any further to-ing and fro-ing on the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done. The post just above by Mary Cummins illustrates well why we have NLT and BLP. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban is also in order. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone revdel a few diffs on the talk page? Outing information, eg [107]   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same, but Batworld outs herself at start of this post, so issue is moot. Glrx (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No offence to Kim Dent-Brown, but could someone who is not the blocking administrator respond to the unblock request by Mary Cummins? The blocking policy says it should be handled by an uninvolved administrator. Also as she was blocked for 'No Legal Threats' technically policy only requires that they make a commitment to not make further threats and retract the ones they have - not that they have to stay away from topic/talk pages. (No matter if it is ultimately a good idea.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

None taken. I'd be happy for any admin who sees this differently to unblock, setting whatever conditions they think necessary. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Mary Cummins has made another unblock request and as it says everything we wanted I have unblocked. I could have waited for another admin to see this but I presume she will not complain at the unblock and thought she would rather have it come sooner from me than later from someone else. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Block request

Long time sock master and banned user Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs) is currently editing from 201.13.194.252 (talk · contribs). Could we please get a block. My understanding is that this isn't supposed to be reported at AIV. If that is incorrect I will make these reports there in future. MarnetteD | Talk 21:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My thanks to Favonian for blocking the IP. Pe may well be back before the day is over so anyone else can keep an eye out for his edits it will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Not really an "incident", but more of a notice.

Over the long US holiday weekend there was a situation where a report on WP:E sat without response for a good number of hours. It appears that the WP:E regulars (myself one of them) were mostly offline, enjoying the holiday.

So the issue has come up of, what should be the preferred next step for someone bringing up an issue to WP:E when it sits for too long without response? The discussion started on WP:E itself, but has now been moved to the WP:E talk page. I'm mentioning this here since one of the logical routes to direct people when WP:E is not generating a response is to encourage them to come here to AN/I. So getting AN/I regulars involved in the discussion would be helpful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if several more active administrators would watchlist the Errors page. I have done so for sometime, but wasn't active for much of the holiday weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Try the IRC channels...? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone has easy IRC access (I don't). Asking people to go off-wiki for on-wiki assistance just does not seem right to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like we need more non-American administrators. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm non-American. It's just not a task I was even aware of, believe it or not. I'd expect that's pretty common (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Alohamesamis

Alohamesamis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Alohamesamis created what can only be described as an edit warring only account on 25 October 2012, resulting in multiple warnings about his behavior on Francis Bacon (artist)[108][109][110][111] and a 31 hour block for personal attacks on November 18.[112] After his block expired, he returned to the same edit warring behavior, and has been edit warring daily for four days across the encyclopedia and removing all warnings from his talk page.[113] Could an administrator please put a stop to this? Because the notices will be deleted, a link to user notification can be found here. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My account is clearly not an "wdit warring only account". I have every right to remove spurious warnings from my page. My "personal attack" was a response to another editor's attack on me. It's completely facetious to pretend that my "edit warring" to remove OR and contradictions is worse, or even as bad, as adding OR and contradictions. Alohamesamis (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alohamesamis reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: ). I believe the best evidence indicates that your account is used only for edit warring. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering he's come out with guns blazing from his very first edit, he's either a sock or someone who needs to be taught a thing or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was only peripherally involved.

However, I only came across him after he had left an insulting comment on another user's talk page.

At that time, I did note his edit history, his overboard remonstrations on others' user pages, and his escalation of hostilities. His edit histories were vituperative, instructive and damning. This was a needless and openly hostile approach, which brought about the readily foreseeable result. In my opinion, he came out with a predisposition toward confrontation.

I would confess, however, that it was I who then took this to WP:AIV, and called the matter to an administrator's attention. This resulted in the 31 hour block.

Evidently, the fact that we are all volunteers, and that we are working together to cooperatively build an encyclopedia together was lost in his user manual. I merely suggested that he try a 'do over' and use a different approach.

I have no knowledge about his actions after I last posted on Alohamesamis's talk page, where I suggest to him that removing warning notices from his own talk page (which I gather he has the right to to) might be ill-advised. Particularly when it is accompanied by disproportionate and grossly vulgar verbiage. I also wrote him that removing the warning notices from his talk page did not make them magically disappear. I attempted to counsel him to do an about face. Whether he did so or not, I do not know and cannot say.

I would suggest that you look at his record and make your own judgment. Res ipsa loquitur. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would offer one small correction. After I posted on his talk page, I did undo one of his edits at Nutella. He had undone several edits concerning the ingredients, opining that they were "original research". Based on the article history, he removed my undo and proceeded to revert multiple times as others took issue with his approach. He seems not to recognize WP:3RR, but you can see for yourselves. In any event, I was not further involved in that.

As directed, I did post a notice of my reply to this inquiry on his talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear from examining this editor's contributions that he's not here to help create an encyclopedia, nor is he willing to edit collegialy or collaboratively. He appears to be, frankly, a troll out to cause as much damage and disruption as possible. An admin should take a close look and indef him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours per report at edit warring noticeboard. Wifione ^Message 08:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Doncram is deciding who can and can't participate in an RFC on a WikiProject talk page

Diff: User:Doncram deleted my rather lengthy comments on a WikiProject talk page discussion about the use of images in a variety of articles. He made a long statement on his reasons for removing my comments; the salient point there seems to be that he "perceive[s] the wp:POINTY point to be an assertion of that editor's "right" to follow [his] edits and complicate". I don't believe that User:Doncram owns the WikiProject (of which I am also a listed member); he certainly does not have the right to bar me from engaging in a discussion of editing questions. I am way past being tired of his personal attacks on me -- and his insistence that I am engaged in wikihounding. I have not restored my comments to the page nor replied to Doncram. I think it best for someone else to intervene. --Orlady (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done User:Nyttend has responded to this incident. --Orlady (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In response to pressure from other editors, Orlady ceased following and contending against my edits for a welcome respite of several months. I resent the return of this. Orlady has an outstanding completely bogus AFD open against an article that I created, and now has twice edited at my Talk page in direct defiance of my wishes. The editor has several times expressed hatred against me and fanned flames of contention involving other editors, and has been deeply uncivil over many years. I just want the editor to stop stalking me. It serves no good purpose for wikipedia that this editor follow and contend, in this case by causing complication. As I note at the Talk page, I did remove the comment, and said that i would not remove it again if anyone else restored it, though I wish no one will condone the behavior. I suggest that ANI frequentors leave it to local NRHP editors to make that choice. Nothing to do here. And I am sorry i cannot engage in extended discussion, may not be able to reply further. --doncram 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm starting to think that Doncram and Orlady and a host of other people aren't even interested in improving the encyclopedia in general, or the NRHP articles in particular, for the end user who might actually read these articles. It's just a game of protecting personal interests these days. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Crying out loud, indeed. I am well aware that Doncram doesn't like it when I post on his talk page, but where else was there for me to post to inform him when I started the AFD on this article and when I started this ANI discussion? --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This again? Time for the nuclear option of starting some sort of discretionary sanctions for NRHP. This comes up several times a year and always the same names. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How about doncram stop removing people's comments on pages that arn't his talk page, to start with? Orlady acted appropriately by coming here, doncram should've done so earlier if he felt there was hounding. Close this with a trout for Doncram for removing comments that arn't his and lets move on.--v/r - TP 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Post on their talk page. When a user says "don't post on my talk page" that means you don't initiate any unnecessary posts or warnings or the like on their page. However, if a notification is required, an editor post one, preferably using a standardized template message if one exists. e.g. {{subst:ANI-notice}} NE Ent 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I suggested Orlady on their talk page to get me involved next time they would need to communicate directly to Doncram, this could hopefully help.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If Doncram insists that even boilerplate notifications count as harassment, then that makes sense. As to the deletion of comments, Doncram should by this point be aware that his personal interpretation of what to do when he feels that a user is harassing him (i.e. whatever he wants) only leads to more drama (such as this). It's getting rather late in the day to be pointing this out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Biased posting of Fram in my COI request concerning my own article talk page Frederic Bourdin

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#Legal threat
• User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 13#IP
• prior discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Frederic Bourdin
• User talk:Francophonie&Androphilie#Frederic Bourdin
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francparler/Archive
• Talk:Frédéric Bourdin#COI edit request

Hello. I know now that it is discouraged to edit an article which is about yourself, but before I knew this, along with many other things I edited the article about me Frederic Bourdin. And I did that honestly, always with the true. Until that day that I got in conflict concerning an edit of my article with the user Bbb23 . At the time because I was mad and it was unfair in my opinion, I got myself blocked for making legal threats and then socking. I, then, asked help to Jimmy Wales, Jimbo talk page as to how to get out of this mess, he showed me the path and now I'm not blocked anymore. He also advised me (Jimbo) to make a COI request to edit my article and that's what I did. But there is a problem, this user Fram who is not neutral because of his involvement with Bbb23 concerning me ( Bbb23 ) asked him his help concerning the problem he had with me), is trying to make my COI request fail with biased speech on my article talk page. I have asked him to refrain from discussing my COI request since he is personally involved but he refuse to do so. He claims that all my reliable sources supporting my COI request should be ignored because, basically, I'm me Frederic Bourdin Can someone help me with this ? --Francparler (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the duplicate report at WP:AN. GiantSnowman 13:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sir, can you also help me to notify the user Fram, I really don't understand how to do it ?--Francparler (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already notified Fram (talk · contribs) and Bbb23 (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 13:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sir.--Francparler (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

People get to have opinions, and you will have to live with the fact that others disagree with you. You need to discuss the matter on the talk page and build consensus. If that can't be achieved, you must use the dispute resolution process; administrators will not drive off dissenters for you. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto - this does not require any administrator intervention. You should continue to use the talk page, and then take any further disagreement to dispute resolution if that fails to work out. GiantSnowman 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you correctly read what I have posted you might understand that I have nothing against others opinions but against BIASED opinions. I don't think it's fair for me when you have someone involved in a dispute to actually comment on the COI request that I have made, especially when the request is concerning directly what the dispute was in the first place. Did I make myself clear enough for you ?--Francparler (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What makes you believe Fram is biased against you in any way? GiantSnowman 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just because you state your COI, doesn't absolve you from it. You remain 100% required to use Wikipedia's policies regarding source: for example, YOU are not a reliable source. People who are the subject of an article may remove non-WP:BLP-conforming information on sight from an article, but it is extremely highly recommended that other than removing vandalism, all other changes should be proposed and discussed on the article talkpage in order to a) verify the sourcing, and b) obtain consensus. If you follow these recommendations, there's no need to drag you to WP:COIN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This: User talk:Francparler#Unblocked see HIS last comment and this User talk:Fram#Bourdin and then watch everything that he wrote on my COI request. It's clear to me, he's doing everything he can to make my COI fail if you are not convinced by all this then explain me why he always follow up on everything I'm trying to do here (which is not much). I don't care about people disagreeing with me as long that they are neutral.--Francparler (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Again, that has nothing to do with why I am complaining here. I am willing to discuss why the editing of the page should be made but I am not willing to discuss it (since it's impossible) with biased users. And I think that concerning Wikipedia's rules, I can ask for neutral users to review with me my COI request and not being harassed by biased users on the talk pages.--Francparler (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And I would simply hope that "how many friends you have in Wikipedia" doesn't decide which edit is good and which edit isn't ! My edit is true and relevant, I can prove it, so I don't even start to understand why I am stopped from editing it.--Francparler (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Francparler, none of the things that Fram said to you, nor their conversation with Bbb23, suggest anything that Fram is aiming to make your COI request fail. Both Fram and Bbb23 are administrators and as such their actions have been above board in their dealings regarding you. Bbb23 asked for an extra admin to look over the situation and approached Fram because they've previously done so. This is entirely appropriate. As an administrator, Fram could have declined your request, however, but chose not to but instead participated in the discussion by offering an opinion as an editor not an adminstrator. Any experienced editor would likely have posed the same questions that were asked. Fram is entirely free to post at the edit request on the article talk page and unfortunately for you, you have no say about whether they can or cannot post there. An uninvolved admin, Kim Dent Brown, has already responded and he will make the appropriate judgements based on his view of the matter. This should be closed forthwith and Kim Dent-Brown left to deal with it. Blackmane (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I was tempted to just close this, but let me try to explain instead. COI editing is allowed, but you have to follow the same rules as everyone else. The problem with COI editing is that it almost impossible for you to be objective and resist the urge to remove information that you think is wrong, even if it is sourced. Or to add information that you absolutely know is true, but can't be sourced. You have no choice but to talk with biased editors. YOU are a biased editor. We all have biases of one kind or another, so what is expected is for us to rise above them then editing. The problem you have raised is about editing, so there is nothing we lowly admin can do for you. Editors decide content of the articles, not admin. You need to accept that you are one voice, and one voice only, and being that person doesn't give you special voting power. Most importantly, our goal at Wikipedia is not The Truth™, it is to publish facts that we can verify in reliable sources. This means that we sometimes sacrifice accuracy in favor of verification. This is not a flaw, it is a deliberate decision. Those are the breaks. If you can't live with this, then you should not edit the article. Right now, your time would be best spent learning what is and isn't a reliable source, and learning how to incorporate the information you want incorporated within our guidelines. Asking for help is often more fruitful than dragging people to WP:AN and WP:ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me just put this then, Jimmy Wales own written words:

This is an unfortunate and I fear typical tale. It is a good example of why we advise people that it is unwise to directly edit their own biographies - it can end in an unfortunate and needless conflict. Here's the most important thing: the changes being suggested by Mr. Bourdin (or whoever he is, if we aren't sure) should be considered thoughtfully and without prejudice as to what the history of this conflict is. There is nothing more important than Wikipedia being correct. Beyond that, what I'd like to see is a path forward for Mr. Bourdin to "come in from the cold". Perhaps he could identify to the Foundation and promise to use only one account and not make legal threats and not edit his own biography directly, and then we can all regard this as an unfortunate misunderstanding and move past it with dignity. But even if that doesn't happen, we need to make sure that Wikipedia is correct.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If I can read correctly he wrote: "...we need to make sure that Wikipedia is correct...". And even if you don't like it Mister Brown, I will use Wikipedia's rules to help me, defending myself against biased users. And I will do what I feel I have to do within Wikipedia's rules in order to show that I am right. What's strange about this it's that it's always users that have a good relationship with Bbb23, like Fram or you Mister Brown that are expressing themselves here about a matter that in my opinion you shouldn't interfere with. But then again don't expect me to do what you say. As long as I respect Wikipedia's rules I can complaint, and trust me I will not let that matter drop. Thank you--Francparler (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Franc, may I offer a suggestion? The people above, including Fram, are offering you advice. No one is trying to make anything fail here, no one is against you. I strongly recommend you try to do more listening than proving here. Arguing and proving led you down the path to a block last time. Try to hear and understand what others are trying to say.--v/r - TP 15:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

{[ec}}:Exhaustive use of wikipedia's policies and guidelines to defend your position can also have the opposite effect. It's called wikilawyering and editors who spend huge amounts of time fighting every opinion by this method are just as likely to be blocked from editing as those who spend the same amount of time breaking them because it is disruptive. You also seem to have missed Jimbo's opening statement "It is a good example of why we advise people that it is unwise to directly edit their own biographies...". Important note to you Francparler (in case you think that I am siding with the admins on this matter) I have no opinion on what material should or should not go in to this article as an uninvolved admin has already taken it in hand (note: I'm not an admin, nor have I had any interaction with Bbb23, Fram or Dennis Brown beyond some administrative matters on this board). Furthermore, your comment that anyone who has "a good relationship with Bbb23, like Fram or you Mister Brown that are expressing themselves here about a matter that in my opinion you shouldn't interfere with" is a flagrant assumption of bad faith and makes it obvious to anyone reading it that your posting here was not to get other opinions, but merely to get opinions that you want to hear. Anything else anyone says automatically makes them on Bbb23's "side". As I said before, this should be closed and left to Kim Dent-Brown on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll chime in here too, as being not involved, and can only second what Tparis said above: no one is against you, all I can see is a big will to offer you advice. Vous devriez écouter, et pas prendre chaque chose dite à propos de ce sujet comme attaque (You should listen, and not take everything said concerning the subject as an attack). Lectonar (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Blackmane but what I mean is I will use Wikipedia rules the way Wikipedia rules indicate me as to how and when to use them. I believe I can do that right ? If I'm wrong and that you can block me then please do it, if not then refrain from threatening me, directly or indirectly as I believe it violate some rules in Wikipedia too. I'm done here. Thank you to those few who did not judge me and know how to read a simple request.--Francparler (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Francparler, the reason I inject myself is that you brought the issue to an administrative board and I'm an admin and you linked a discussion on my talk page, and I've had to act due to your behavior before. Even then, as an IP, I tried to keep you from getting blocked for a legal threat but you refused to listen.[114] You might not like what I have to say, but my intention is to help you and reduce the odds that this ends badly. If it continues in forum after forum, it could end in a disruption block, as TParis has pointed out. I agree that it is best handled by Kim Dent-Brown on the talk page over there, who is arguably one of the most patient and level headed admin we have at Wikipedia. This place, ANI has earned the reputation "the drama board" for a reason. This is the last resort, the final call for resolution on editor behavior, not content. I'm not questioning the material you want to add/delete (that is outside the scope of this board). I'm saying that this is the wrong place to solve your problems.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox women

I created the Template:Infobox women to show, among other things, the Gender Inequality Index for every country in the series of articles 'women in…'. As can be seen in Women in Yemen and in the article about the GII itself, there are 146 countries ranked on the list. Another editor keeps on insisting that the template should only rank 145 countries instead, based on a number stated in some pages of the source document http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf, which I believe is a simple mistake however. Any opinion that will help get to the bottom of this rather silly issue is most welcome.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)