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

User:Ryulong, failing to WP:AGF and claiming WP:SOCK as a weapon.

Ryulong, has accused me of being/having a sock here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CombatWombat42

Page	Min time between edits	A50000	CombatWombat42
Soviet Union	20 hours — (timeline)	3	1

That is the entirety of his evidence. Ryulong has in the past used the reson "sock" for deleting content created by other editors. If his evidence against me is as flimsy as his evidence against those other users he should not be allowed to claim WP:SOCK as a reason for any edits. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The evidence listed is a similarity in the edit summaries because they both invoke North Korea. I don't think Ryulong made a bad faith sockpuppet report, though it may be a bad report. I don't think any action is necessary based on one report. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw a commonality and I was a little suspicious. If it's proven wrong then I made a mistake and I'll apologize.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not just my case, in general Ryulong has been using accuszations of sockpupetry to make changes to pages that would otherwise be unaccetable, and if his claims are based on evidence as flimsy as that in my case, he needs to stop. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In all of the other cases you are referring to (except that Macdaddyc/Youngsevon case [I'm still not convinced they're unrelated]) the opposing party was a sockpuppet of a banned editor, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are right what percentage of the time? Assuming you are wrong about me. Is wikipedia willing to accept your blatant disregard for policy 100-<that percent of the time>? Because everytime you assume someone is a sock and then are wrong, you are violating policy. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say I'm somewhere in the 90th percentile or higher. And all that is happening here is I saw a connection and I thought it was probable. And it's only "violating policy" if I suspect a banned editor is involved, I act on my suspicion, and I'm proven wrong. That hasn't happened yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have to admit, Ryulong, that you freely use the rationale of "removing content from a blocked editor" to freely delete any content you deem falls under this category, whether it is to an article, talk page or user talk page. And when I press you for evidence that the editor is a sock account, it usually isn't diffs, but based on similarities you perceive. I think you should work through SPI rather than taking on wholesale deleting of content from editors you judge to be socks. If it is as apparent as you believe, you'll be validated at SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, stop pinging me by copying my signature. There's no need for you to write my name as "[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]]" every time. Just use "Ryulong".

Second, I have not in this case that CombatWombat42 is taking offense to done anything in regards to removing content because I suspect sockpuppetry. And you've never pressed me for evidence of sockpuppetry that I can recall. If you're going off of the Wiki-star or BuickCenturyDriver/Don't Feed the Zords debacles, it was their overall behavior that had to be compared. And if you look at WP:SPI you can see it is heavily backlogged. It's easier to bag and tag in the short term when it's obvious (constantly posting messages to that one user's talk page, constantly adding the same copyvio content to an episode list as they did to other episode lists in the past, etc.) than it is to let them run rampant and cause problems. No page is exempt from WP:BAN. Things were not handled properly in everything you saw, but that fact still stands.

As I said, I have done no reverting concerning sockpuppetry in this CombatWombat42/A50000 investigation. I saw similar rationales and edit warring over the course of several days and I sent it for investigation. If I'm wrong in this case, then I'll apologize and nothing has to be done. This is really making a mountain out of a molehill.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I didn't think of it as "pinging" you...I was referring to you, as an editor, and I thought I'd use the signature you prefer. No one else has ever told me this was improper as this is how you like your name to appear. But I won't in the future since you dislike it.

I don't know the specifics of this case on AN/I but I'm referring to when you repeatedly deleted comments from my talk page that you said were being posted by a sock account even though I didn't see any hard evidence this was the case. And when I reverted your deletions (as it was my talk page) because I wanted to read their messages to me, you acted like I was providing a safe haven for blocked users, even though it hadn't been established that they were a blocked user. In fact, I don't even know how you came to view my talk page and the comments since I doubt that you have it on your Watchlist. We had quite a conversation about this incident, stretching over several pages, so I'm surprised you don't remember it. It's never happened to me before that another editor deleted someone else's content from my talk page but maybe it isn't unusual for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong: would it have cost you anything to write "First of all, please stop pinging me by copying my signature" instead of "First of all, stop pinging me by copying my signature"? You don't need anyone else to paint you as the bad guy, you do it all by yourself. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously, filing an SPI in good faith is not against policy. Being mistaken about the connection is not against policy. Being wrong often isn't against policy, but it will result in a user being barred from filing at SPI, via a discussion at ANI (essentially, a topic ban). Unless someone can show that this filing was bad faith, OR that Ryulong is wrong more than 10% of the time at SPI, then this is a dead subject (I'm just making up that number, but you should be right at least 90%, or there is reason to discuss at ANI). I will remind everyone that reverting someone as a sock, or calling someone a sock, if you have not filed an SPI report on them or reported them to an admin is a blockable personal attack as a clear violation of WP:NPA. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  How is it a personal attack?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Because you are labeling someone with a title that undermines their edits and can get them blocked. It is the same if I go around reverting you with the summary "reverting edits from a vandal". You are making a claim against someone without substantiating it. Trust me, it isn't my opinion, policy is clear that calling someone by a name that is a blockable offense (vandal, sockpuppet, etc.) is absolutely a personal attack. It can also be used to simply undermine their voice in a discussion, and to create a chilling effect in a discussion. Unquestionably, a blockable issue if you haven't reported them, or you do so in bad faith. Really, you don't need to call them a sock at all if they aren't blocked for it, but if you haven't reported them first, it looks very much like bad faith. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown is right about idle allegations of sockpuppetry, which are just as disruptive as idle allegations of vandalism. If you know Wikipedia well enough to know what WP:VANDALISM is, don't claim vandalism in a content dispute simply because you are on the side of WP:TRUTH. If you know Wikipedia well enough to know what a sockpuppet is, don't claim sockpuppetry unless you have reason beyond idle suspicion. Just because both users quack doesn't make them the same species of duck. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Because if you believe someone is a sock, you do a wholesale revert of all of their edits, without any proof whatsoever. You're thinking of the percentage of times you're right but consider the situation when you are wrong and an editor finds all of their edits reverted? I'm sure that if they weren't mainly IPs, they'd appear on AN/I where you'd need to present your evidence to back up your claim. Right now, you are completely unrestrained. No doubt, given your lengthy experience on Wikipedia, you have a good sense for possible socks. But you can't be right all of the time and if targeted, innocent IPs won't normally come to AN/I to complain, they will just stop editing. So, yes, it can be a personal attack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• In short, you tread lightly and don't throw around the "sock" word unless you are sure enough to file a report on them. This is also an editor retention issue, where new users don't need to be called a sockpuppet and chased off the project just because they are interested in the same subject a real sockpuppet was interested in. Connecting the dots between sockpuppets isn't as simple as "they are both interested in $x article", there is a lot of nuance to it, which is why SPI exists, and why the people that work there are specialists at it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was hoping to hear. WP:AGF goes for IP accounts, too...at least that's where you start, not assuming an IP is a vandal or sock. Thanks, Dennis Brown. I hope your view is shared by other admins and editors. I edited for years as an IP and I know that if I had been treated as a sock, I wouldn't be editing now. I assume that goes for many other IP editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it is more a more of policy than opinion, although it is more difficult to enforce than some policies. It all boils down to not calling someone as sock, vandal, troll or other negative name unless you are very confident that they fit the definition at Wikipedia for that label. Anyway, this can probably be closed and hopefully we won't have to visit this issue again. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not Again - These Reports Are Too Common

At least once every two weeks there is another report at this board involving User:Ryulong. Often it has to do with anime and manga. Sometimes it has to do with other areas. What I have observed in, among other things, Soviet Union, is that I agree with Ryulong on the specific content issues, but he can be extremely uncivil, and being right doesn't justify incivility and personal attacks. My advice to Ryulong, which will almost certainly be ignored, is to dial it down, and don't always have to be right, and also that there is no harm done in discussing edits with a sockpuppet. It isn't always necessary to win the edit war, even if it is winnable under the special exceptions for blocked users. At the same time, my advice to those who keep bringing Ryulong to the noticeboards is that they are just wasting electrons here. If they really want Ryulong to change his behavior or to have him blocked, go with the more structured approach of a user conduct request for comments. Ryulong: Dial the rhetoric down. Critics of Ryulong: Either dial the rhetoric down, or follow established procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or try something really stupid like.....attempting to assume good faith and engaging the editor in a civil manner to counter the perception of incivility. I am getting really tired of the gang up myself to be honest but it happens so often I wonder if I should just seek a gang myself. Nah....I can be enough of an asshole not to drag others into my ignorance...which is what I suggest of others think about as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this advice really applies here. I thought I saw suspicious activity and made a request to investigate. I've not even engaged in discussion with either parties prior to CombatWombat42's creation of this thread in response to the SPI. I don't even see myself being incivil in any of the discussions I'm currently embroiled in, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I make some suggestions?

Here are some common-sense suggestions I think that can help Ryulong operate in the area that he operates in (where sockpuppetry is unfortunately not uncommon) without coming into conflict. Ryulong, if you think any of this is unreasonable, feel free to say what is unreasonable and why. If someone else thinks that any of this advice is incorrect, again, feel free to correct me.

• Suspecting someone of sockpuppetry, if you have a good reason to feel that way, is fine.
• Opening an SPI case for someone who you suspect is a sockpuppet is also fine, and not a big deal. If someone is mentioned in an SPI case and is cleared it won't hurt their reputation at the project. It happens to lots of people, even I was accused once of being a sockpuppet (by someone who turned out to be a sockpuppet themselves).
• Alerting the person that an SPI was opened is fine. Asking someone questions that might help you decide whether or not to open an SPI (without being overly accusatory in the process) is fine.
• What is not fine... Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without simultaneously presenting evidence of it, as this is a personal attack and clearly defined as one by our policy. Administrators sometimes make WP:DUCK blocks and tags of editors who are sockpuppets, and there is a bit of leeway given for that (to not let an excess of bureaucracy get in the way of stopping disruption) but any admin should be able to justify any block with some evidence (though maybe not too much per WP:BEANS).
• What is also not fine... Tagging an editor's page with a sockpuppet template when the editor has not been identified as a sock and/or blocked by an administrator. Reverting an editor's edits because you suspect the editor is a sockpuppet; wait until the editor has been tagged and/or blocked by an admin before doing that. Taking any action at all with the assumption that the editor you're reverting is a sockpuppet, before an administrator has taken action against the editor for sockpuppetry.

I know that administrators don't have special "authority", but this is one of those areas where admins have traditionally been expected to enforce policy and non-administrators are discouraged. There's a reason why WP:SPI/AI is called "administrator instructions". -- Atama頭 18:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Reverting an editor's edits because you suspect the editor is a sockpuppet"

This is where I got hung up with Ryulong in the past, when he edited my talk page to revert another editor he thought was a sock (whether he was or not, I don't know). He stated that WP:DENY took precedence over other policy. Nice to see this issue clarified. Sometimes you have to say these points out loud (so to speak) as reminders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:DENY is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It has good advice (when used responsibly) but doesn't take precedence over anything. -- Atama頭 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement is policy though. And you are both censuring me for my actions regarding the Wiki-star and BuickCenturyDriver sockpuppets who were pretty blatant about who they were. All I've done in this situation is mistakenly believe that CombatWombat42 and A50000 are somehow related and he took everything way too personally, as can be seen in his WP:POINTy and retaliatory opening of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryulong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: If your last point is true, then why does Template:Sockpuppet specifically state that you may tag an account when you think it is a sock, but are not sure?--Atlan (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Atama is correct, and details what I said better than I did. For the most part, you leave SPI to the clerks at SPI, who are picked by CUs and are more accountable for their actions. If you think someone is a sock, right or wrong, calling them a sock isn't solving anything. Admins and clerks are selected by the community to deal with exactly these problems, let them. As long as you are right much more than you are wrong when reporting them, there are no issues. And....regardless of what a template page says, editors tagging other editors is a bad idea 99% of the time, it only causes drama. And if someone does it several times and is wrong many times, they WILL get blocked for disruption, or topic banned from SPI or using any sock related templates. I have seen that before. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyone can compare and/or contrast Ryulong 8 years ago to whatever he is today, and he or she thinks the user experiences between him and others was okay back then but now look bleak. Betacommand in 2005 before he changed his name to "Δ" (Delta) was not as harmful as during the time when he got criticism from WP:ARBCOM and was banned in 2012. History repeats. Ryulong will probably go to ArbCom and might be banned if the mayhem and misunderstandings he's creating continues. I guarantee he would fail to keep up with his past success because he accused an innocent user for sockpuppetry. He is not Cirt. IX|(C"<) 22:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • What is this even supposed to mean other than being a huge failure to assume good faith? This is one mistake I've made that the other person took way too personally. In the other cases I dealt with obvious sockpuppets and directly with a CU in trying to get them shut down because they were obvious sockpuppets. The only reason I ended up blocked in regards to those situations was because I engaged the sockpuppets and someone got mad when I tried to remove the messages he received from those sockpuppets. This is all being blown out of proportion, again, and should have ended without having the new subsections.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the nugget of wisdom to take from this "Gonna" guy's comment is that eventually, they will probably ban you just so they won't have to read about you anymore; it'd have nothing to do with being right or wrong. On numerous occasions I have compared Arbcom's dealings cases to a basketball game where two players get into a bit of a row. The refs rarely take the time to look at who started it, i.e. who was truly at fault; the refs just T up both parties just to get the decks cleared and for the game to resume. Everything looks like a nail to the Hammer Corps, bro. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. If Ryu continues to refuse to tone it down, one of these days, some Admin is going to "tone it down for him" when they're tired of hearing about it. Not me, but a different admin who doesn't want to hear about it anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize ANI was the place to make vague threats.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's more puzzling about that comment. You taking that as a threat when I specifically stated I wouldn't do that to you? Or the fact that people threaten one another up and down ANI? (Even though I wasn't in this instance.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross is right, he is just trying to let you know what will happen if you continue this behavior. It is just a reminder to settle down. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Constant personal attacks by Mrm7171

Mrm7171 keeps attacking me and accusing me of using Wikipedia to promote the academic Society for Occupational Health Psychology. This has been going on since last summer, and I just want it to stop. For the record, I am a member of SOHP, but I have no financial or family/friend interest in this society. It is a typical academic society with hundreds of members. I am not an officer or have any particular personal stake in it. The occupational health psychology article they keep accusing me of using as promotion for SOHP has a mention of SOHP in one place (history of the field), and I am not the one who wrote it. I just want them to stop accusing me every time I disagree on some content issue. They have done it on the occupational health psychology talk page and other place. They keep inserting personal opinion, unreferenced statement, and mis-citing sources into the article, e.g.,[1], and when other editors point it out, they are attacked. They have been blocked three times for bad behavior, the last time in February for personal attacks. Here's some examples of the accusations on the OHP talk page and other places.

[2] One quote: “Iss246&psyc12, it is obvious that you are both very strongly advocating for and trying to advance and promote your outside interests and connection to your 2 'OHP' societies(ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP').

After Atama just cautioned me to be careful in talking about SOHP in articles, they kept on with the attacks. “Iss246’s & now psyc12’s ridiculously strong and blatant promotion and Wikipedia:Advocacy (since 2008) is definitely continuing to create disruption to editing.[3] Note when Atama asked for examples of promotion, they provided none.

On Jytdog’s talk page where I have never posted: [4]

And today--see end of this section and Bilby's independent reaction. [5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) Psyc12 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is right here, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard under header Occupational Health Psychology that you are actually talking about above, psyc12. I had a right to report you there. That is the appropriate forum for COI reports. However can you please provide any evidence, at all, through diffs psyc12, where I have personally attacked you?? Not once, not any! I have made sure I have remained civil, courteous and respectful for over 75 days with both you and iss246. I feel this report here is vexatious and frivolous, without any cause, or based on any objective evidence.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12 and iss246 have admitted themselves as friends and colleagues outside of Wikipedia; psyc12 joining Wikipedia on iss246’s direct invitation. They are also active members and advocates for the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and the ‘goals’ of that professional society. They edit in unison, ‘appearing’ at the same time, on the same articles, presenting the same POV, and often even answering questions that were directed to the other editor.

See [6] Psyc12 seems to be as involved in SOHP & EAOHP as their colleague, here discussing SOHP [7] Psyc12 could be the chair of the 'OHP' committee for all I know!

In fact, these COI issues with iss246 & now psyc12 and the society of 'OHP' have been ongoing since 2008 between many psychology editors. See here. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1. It is also seen here, in these series of diffs, from 2008, between iss246 and another experienced editor. These diffs show difficulties iss246 is presenting over the same topic of ‘OHP’ and including ‘external links’ to their society for ‘OHP’ in the OHP article. See: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] The point is, I have tried to add edits, or sources to bring some NPOV but have been prevented from doing so by both psyc12 & iss246. See this diff showing 3 consecutive reverts made by psyc12 within minutes of each other and me trying to find a civil resolution. [17] On Talk:Occupational health psychology It is filled to the brim with at least 20 PDF links back to their SOHP newsletters as reliable sources. Also adding external links back to their SOHP society, and then other editors being told (in no uncertain terms) by iss246 & psyc12 to leave the external links alone! [18] [19] [20] And here psyc12 saying there is only room in the article for links to their 'OHP’ societies!? [21] [22][23] [24] [25] I have tried not to bring up the COI assessment made by Atama and was not aware that COI could not be mentioned again? In fact, as soon as I dared to remind these editors of the COI issues, I am immediately reported here by psyc12!? I even said to Bilby before psyc12 decided to post here, okay, well I won't mention Atama's COI assessment again. However this article remains very biased and I feel like no other editor can possibly add any reliably sourced, neutral edits to the article, without psyc12 & iss246 quickly blanking them in tandem, under the guise that the edits were "not appropriate" (or some other similar excuse), and without providing any diffs, or Wikipedia policy explaining on what basis they are deleting my edits? see Talk:Occupational health psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If any editor believes there is 'any' uncivil, or 'any' disrespectful editing or any personal attacks I have made, over the past 65 days please post the evidence right here. I stand by my objective edit history over the past few months, and don't appreciate 'frivolous blanking' of my good faith edits or baseless claims of personal attack, here by psyc12. As I've said, I won't bring up Atama's assessment of COI again, and did not realise that I could not even mention, that this assessment had actually been established at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard when psyc12 & iss246 have completely ignored that assessment and this article Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide I found quite useful in dealing with COI issues.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my suggestion at WP:COIN was that if someone was a member of a professional society that they should take care when editing articles about their organization, or when adding information about their organization to articles or linking to sites related to or hosted by their organization. For example, I myself hold some certifications provided by CompTIA, and was at one time an "IT Professional" member of the organization. As a result, I just don't edit anything related to it. I might be holding myself to a pretty strict COI standard, because I wouldn't gain any direct benefit from promoting the organization and little-to-no indirect benefit either. I assume that both Psyc12 and Iss246 have a similar relationship with SOHP. The only reason why I stated on the COI noticeboard that I had a concern was because there was a claim that they were advocates for the organization. The term "advocate" is a loaded one, but neither editor denied the claim, despite the fact that I brought it up again myself in that discussion. So I'm not comfortable with two "advocates" for an organization using references provided by the organization. At the same time, I warned Mrm7171 to "not use my determination of a COI concern in regards to SOHP as a bludgeon in content disputes, especially in regards to edit-warring and personal attacks", and to use dispute resolution to settle any disagreements at the page rather than relying on COI concerns to "win" a dispute. I also stated very clearly that I wouldn't (and couldn't) unilaterally declare a ban on the editors that would prevent them from editing about SOHP. I later asked Mrm7171 what bias or other problems were introduced to the article because of the inclusion of references to SOHP. As far as I can tell, I never received a direct answer to my question.

So, unfortunately I believe that Mrm7171 did exactly was I asked the editor not to. They took my mild concern about a COI and are misusing it to bludgeon the other editors into submission, and are trying to at least paint Iss246 (and by implication Psyc12 as a colleague) as an editor using Wikipedia for financial gain based solely on a grant received 15 years earlier. Mrm7171 did link to some legitimate misbehavior from Iss246 on the COI noticeboard as examples of bias, but the links date back to 2008, which suggests that the editor has improved and moved past the problems they had starting out. More recent examples of "misbehavior" seem to be well-explained content changes and Mrm7171 seems to be objecting to any inclusion of information provided by SOHP as improper, or removal of information provided by other sources, regardless of context. It's getting into WP:NPA territory at this point, and Mrm7171 has already been blocked once for that (see here in the ANI archives). The suggestion there was that Mrm7171 should be blocked indefinitely, but Drmies only blocked Mrm7171 for two weeks. There was hope expressed in that discussion that Mrm7171 would return "with a fresh perspective" but seeing that two months later they are still at it, perhaps the suggestion at that old discussion (by multiple editors) that Mrm7171 be blocked indefinitely should be revisited. -- Atama頭 16:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that was my hope. I never saw clear consensus for something as drastic as that, and that's no surprise since wading through the contributions made by both editors, but especially Mrm, is not an attractive prospect--these discussions have suffered from lack of third-party input. Given the results of your investigation, I have no objection to an indefinite block. It is entirely possible that the other side has been disruptive one way or another, but I think any objective observer will recognize that the main thrust comes from Mrm's side. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add, too, that about a week (or so) following the expiration of their most recent block, Mrm7171 filed a sockpuppet investigation trying to link Psyc12 and Iss246 together, despite the fact that CheckUser had already been run against the two the previous year and cleared them both (with the suggestion that there was evidence of some collusion between the two, but not enough to be actionable). This was prior to the COI noticeboard complaint filed a few weeks later. Looking over Mrm7171's contributions, I'm seeing an obsessive focus on working against both of these editors, most especially after their last block expired. This includes discussing the edits of these editors on talk pages of other editors, discussing it on article talk pages, discussing it at COIN, at SPI, reverting the editors, and so on. The more I look into Mrm7171's editing behavior (which includes more than 1,000 edits since they were unblocked at the end of January) the more I see a disturbing pattern of what can only be called harassment. Unless someone gives me a reason otherwise, I'm going to block them indefinitely. I don't believe that Mrm7171 is at Wikipedia for constructive purposes. -- Atama頭 17:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge made a good suggestion of a voluntary six-month topic ban for Mrm7171 and Iss246, but it seems both have turned it down. Unfortunately, the current state is unworkable, with ongoing disruption across multiple articles. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Would that involve iss246 as well? If so, I would be willing to agree to that. The conflict between iss246 and multiple editors since 2008 has not improved. I am just the most recent editor that has attempted to bring some NPOV to these 'OHP' articles and found strident opposition from iss246 when I have attempted any change. And i mean any change whatsoever, however slight. So why then focus on me. Why not the countless other editors over the years? And obviously there is a common denominator here, since 2008. That is iss246. Sorry for stating the absolutely, bleeding obvious here, but hey!Mrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My behavior over the past 70 days now has been exemplary. I have backed down, stepped back, compromised. I can show that through my objective edit history, countless examples in fact. No one has produced any diffs or actual objective evidence to show otherwise. I have made substantial contributions to a range of articles on Wikipedia in specialized areas. I have brought matters to the appropriate forums, as advised by many editors. As soon as I do so, I'm attacked for doing that? I added to the COIN case as I was unclear what Atama meant. What parameters if any, had been set I had wondered? Atama asked for more information. I provided it. I was also not aware of not being able to mention it again? I stopped mentioning it! I have been civil and courteous and respectful. If I had not been civil or had not 'backed down,' 'stepped back', compromised, then sure, but I have done of that!

So, on what grounds exactly, would you consider banning me, please? The only reason I can see, is you saying I am obsessed with these 2 editors. I only want to see neutral, reliably sourced articles. If you believe I have harassed or personally attacked, provide some evidence through diffs please. I have not. And will not. Please produce some actual diffs, as evidence, showing how I have done anything against any Wikipedia policies and guidelines that warrant banning?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Specifically Atama, if you say a pattern of harassment could you provide any diffs, any evidence over the past 70 days? It seems that I am being made the scapegoat here to deal with a difficult situation. That is, an editor actually holding iss246's editing behavior to account and in the proper forum. Countless other editors have given up. These articles are grossly biased. That is not what Wikipedia wants their articles to be, surely! If there is actual evidence over the past 70 days for these accusations against me, surely it would be no problem providing the diffs? I realize you are taking on an administrator's role, however we all need to abide by Wikipedia protocol. Just saying someone does something without any diffs to prove it, is simply opinion and entirely subjective. Please provide some diffs Atama to support your accusations. Isn't that fair enough? I have made significant contributions to Wikipedia in many articles. I completely reject an assertion that I am not here for constructive purposes. And especially, with absolutely no diffs to support that accusation.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My involvement in this: January 16, pointing out WP:SHOUT to Mrm7171 first, second; January 23, chastizing Iss246 (with an added ping to Psyc12) about using an article talk page "for diff-less rebutting of a blocked user's diff-less accusations posted on an entirely different page." I edited Occupational safety and health on January 31 for formatting.[26]

For this post I looked at the February 28 COIN posting, and the non-article related edits up to March 23 0112, performed by three of the contributors to the Occupational health psychology article. I did not look at articles or content edits, nor is anything posted after March 23 0112 included. Please note that quoted text contains native formatting peculiarities. Lack of ellipses around chopped quotes was my decision, and excess link arrows becaouse I forgot {{diff}}.

Lots of diffs

COIN used as a bludgeon At Jytdog (talk · contribs)'s talk: March 3 "iss246&psyc12 have blatantly ignored your opinion and indeed Atama's fair and objective summation and direction" (Jytdog had commented at COIN) At Jytdog's talk: March 4, 0044 "Administrator Atama, you, I..." At Jytdog's talk: March 4, 0301 "Atama's summation was accurate and fair" Talk:Occupational health psychology (T:OHP): March 13 "administrator Atama's accurate assessment" with COIN, WP:Advocacy, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability and WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (PSCOI) (essay) links T:OHP: March 14, 0802 "Administrator Atama has already made the correct assessment" w/COIN link T:OHP: March 14, 2231 "administrator Atama correctly assessed these COI issues." w/COIN link T:OHP: March 16 "legitimate COI concerns have already been assessed by administrator Atama" w/COIN, VERIFIABILITY, NPOV, and PSCOI links T:OHP: March 19 "administrator Atama's accurate recent assessment" w/VERIFIABILITY link T:OHP: March 21 "administrator Atama correctly assessed these COI issues." w/COIN, WP:Tag team, PSCOI, ADVOCACY, NPOV, and VERIFIABILITY links T:OHP: March 22, 0026 "But won't mention Atama's COI assessment again on this page." w/PSCOI link T:OHP: March 22, 0103 "Atama did provide psyc12 & iss246 advice," ... "These 2 editors have ignored administrator's advice." T:OHP: March 23 "won't mention Atama's COI assessment here again." At WP:ANI: March 22, 0536 and March 22, 0826. Note that while one is expected to give pertinent history into editor conflicts, Mrm7171 links to the COIN board in both posts, adds in Atama's name with this revision, and a PSCOI link in this revision. Battlefield behaviour Mrm7171 (talk · contribs): Almost constant use of 'scare quotes' around the abbreviation OHP, even inside other abbreviations, such as S'OHP'; see Talk:Occupational health psychology, user talk page, etc.. Refusal to link to OHP, only to the word "psychology", as in "organizational health psychology", except when coaxing editors to edit the article. Originally it was a dispute about the topic range of OHP[27], but Mrm7171 has continued to use it [28] [29] [30] [31][32] [33] [34][35] [36] [37][38] [39] [40] twice in this one, "broad topic" at COIN, [41] [42] [43] at COIN, at COIN Massive case of the shouts (bolding); see any talk page Mrm7171 has ever posted on to view it. Attempt to make other editors see Psyc12 and/or Iss246 as bad (poor?) editors: Discussions at Jytdog's talk, any T:OHP edit addressed to an editor other than Psyc12 or Iss246. Repeated use of "objective" / "objectivity" in attempts to either water down their own criticism or stroke another editor: at Talk:OHP [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]; at Jytdog's talk three uses, two uses, and one use; at COIN two times, three times Dismissing a reliable source because it "appears to be another member and advocate of this 'OHP' society" (combined diff), "It sounds like a subjective opinion", "Clearly other 'objective' sources contradict his opinions." (combined diff). When asked to produce the other sources[50], Mrm7171 failed to do so and reverted to accusing Psyc12 and Iss246 of advocacy and COI at the bottom of this section Posts multiple times in a row without waiting for replies. These posts are irregularly indented, riddled with bold text, and usually contain a slam at either Psyc12, Iss246 or both. See the edit history of OHP talk page history for the times, Contributors to that page for total number of posts, and this randomly picked edit for a "You did all these bad things but *I* am working towards consensus!" post. Psyc12 made a single 256-word post with numbered points in it. It ended with a complaint about "endless walls of text", Mrm7171 replied, "That's a lot of text, psyc12 and is very confusing." Mrm7171's next five uninterrupted edits added 2 sections totalling 229 words. Bibly posted once, then Mrm7171 made 6 edits, creating 2 posts in one section and a brand new section, at 186 words total, in one hour. Refusing to accept that Psyc12 and Iss246 are separate editors: Mrm7171 pings "psyc12" 7 times on the OHP talk page, and otherwise mentions "psyc12" 44 times. Of those 44 mentions, 35 pair Psyc12 and Iss246 ("psyc12 & iss246", "you and psyc12" talking to Iss246). Slamming Psyc12's and/or Iss246's work on the OHP article: pretty much any post at the WP:COIN section or any post at Talk:OHP; at Bilby (talk · contribs)'s talk:[51] "Just want a civil resolution and to bring some much needed NPOV to that very biased article." Of the 35 pairings from above, starting at February 27 and ending March 22 (23 days), Mrm7171 comments: "deleting key points" "It is not very civil to just delete it like you both have and creates unnecessary conflict." "blindly delete" "may not reflect positively on your 'OHP' society members" "friends and colleagues outside of Wikipedia, makes editing very disruptive." "There are obvious commercial and financial interests involved here" "Please don't fabricate or distort" (when no one had posted yet) "will you continue to 'block' any much needed additions and NPOV to this article?" "will you continue to blindly delete" "Society of 'OHP' (that iss246 & psyc12 are active members of)" "paid sponsorship" "are strong advocates for, and members of, the 'OHP' societies and the various goals, and agendas and associated conferences and paid sponsorships" "do you both actually mean your privately run 'OHP' societies?" "separate 'OHP' community?" "affiliated with iss246 and psyc12's 'OHP' societies.Wikipedia:Verifiability." "alongside iss246 and psyc12's 2 'OHP' societies", "part of their 2 'OHP' societies" "it is obvious that you are both very strongly advocating for and trying to advance and promote your outside interests and connection to your 2 'OHP' societies(ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP') "have ignored and dismissed administrator Atama's accurate assessment of your COI in this article" "both having COI issues in relation to your 'OHP' societies." Quoting Atama at COIN and adding bolding: "He stated: "I do agree that there are some legitimate COI concerns here, though. If Iss246 and Psyc12 are members of an organization, I strongly recommend taking care when referencing the organization or writing about the organization in articles." "insisted including this informal 'OHP' group", "Seems very promotional." "COI concerns", "active members of the exact organizations we are writing about" "With a number of the other deletions that psyc12&iss246 had made, I chose not to re-include them, for civility and compromise." "active members of their 'OHP' society have significant COI issues" Quoting Atama as per above, with no inserted bolding, but adds the truncated quote, ""Also operating together could be considered tag teaming, which can lead to problems."" "COI issues existed with psyc12 & iss246's 'OHP' memberships and advocacy of that societies agendas"..."an extremely biased article" "These 2 editors have ignored administrator's advice." "have also blanked this neutral, reliably sourced edit." The list is not complete: these are only from T:OHP, and only from paragraphs where Mrm7171 addresses both Psyc12 and Iss246 together. No diffs are included; I found the mentions of "psyc12" by using Ctrl+F on the page then reading the sentence/section. Tenditious, "I didn't hear that!" attitude: Demands explanations for edits and, when an explanation is provided, then demands diffs (yes, diffs) or explanations of how the edit in question follows policy. Most recent demand here, previous one, one hour before that The section Talk:Occupational health psychology#Discussion of of blanking is an example, by its length, breadth of topics, demands, and Mrm7171's deafness, of how Mrm7171 interacts on that talk page. Its last few posts end with Bilby telling Mrm7171 to drop the stick inre COIN. Mrm7171 conflates the alleged COI as producing an "extremely biased article" (bold formatting removed) and says they won't mention it again. Three more edits to the page and 27 minutes later, Mrm7171 posts: "Also Bilby. Atama did provide psyc12 & iss246 advice, regarding their COI, and I even offered this excellent article as a guide also. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. These 2 editors have ignored administrator's advice. So, what do you suggest Bilby?" Bilby replies, "I suggest doing nothing. Neither Psy12 nor Iss246 have a COI in regard to OHP. They do potentially have a COI in regard to SOHP, which I am sure they take into account, but there is no reason why they should not be editing this article, and excellent reasons as to why their involvement here is a good thing." Mrm7171 posts, "I think that's all I ever said too Bilby, re: the COI assessment related to their affiliations with their 'OHP' academic societies and the society agendas? Also, as I said, didn't realise the COI issues could never be mentioned here, to be honest. Regardless, won't mention Atama's COI assessment here again. Just want to move forward with this article. It does need a lot of work. Towards that goal, you haven't commented below please Bilby? Interested in your thoughts?" Psyc12 (talk · contribs): Attempts to turn COIN into conduct censure: first, second In the past three weeks Psyc12 has said little to nothing to anyone about Mrm7171. They have posted 12 times to the OHP talk page, and otherwise have left only notices of this AN/I on 2 user talk pages. Iss246 (talk · contribs): Attempts to turn COIN into conduct censure (first, second (combined diff)), was chastised for it, then took it to a user talk page where they were also chastised. In the past three weeks Iss246 has said nothing to anyone about Mrm7171 on user talk pages, beyond the above discussion on March 2. Iss246 got bossy on OHP talk: "So leave the OHP external links section alone." A previous post included, "Don't make a federal case out of it." This was in a new section just after a previous week-long discussion (Talk:Occupational health psychology#External links) that ended with Mrm7171 saying there were "obvious commercial and financial interests involved". Mrm7171 started the new section the next day.

Again, this was a limited look at non-content contributions. It was originally created very early on March 23 so it contains nothing posted anywhere after that. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not notice the breaches of the 3 revert rule over the past 2 weeks, by both iss246 & psyc12, posted anywhere in all of that? I did not realise 'OHP' was scary quotes either? You did not mention Jytdog's strong belief that Wikipedia was being used for advocacy and promotion? You did not post any diifs of all the occasions I compromised, backed down, stepped back over content disputes? As soon as Bilby said don't bring up COIN, I stopped. I was not aware it could not be mentioned. You talk about bolding or shouting. Where? Where on any talk pages, in the last 65 days, have I overused bolding? I did not see all of the other articles I have made constructive editing on? mentioned above? Mrm7171 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mrm7171: I posted diffs above in my initial post to this thread. The bottom line is this... You came very close to an indefinite block because of your pursuit of Iss246. You were blocked temporarily instead, with the hope that maybe a lengthy block would give you some perspective. Instead, you hounded the editor, and Psyc12 as well, taking them to SPI (which was clearly just retaliation, you knew that CheckUser had already cleared them) and followed that up with the COIN thread. I told you that I had mild concerns, but that they weren't especially serious and I said not to use my concerns to attack the editors and to use dispute resolution. You did the opposite. You've demonstrated time and again that you are completely unable to participate collegially on Wikipedia, and I believe your entire purpose on this encyclopedia since your last block (and probably for some time before it) has been to work doggedly against these editors.

But I'll give you a chance, probably one more chance than you merit at this point, but I'll offer it anyway. Would you agree to leave these editors alone? To stop undoing their edits, removing their references, bringing them up on noticeboards, challenging them on user and article talk pages? Will you do something useful for the encyclopedia? -- Atama頭 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I recently ran across this... Was that sincere? Are you willing to "step right back from these 'OHP' articles"? Because if so, I think we can all just move on, no admin action needed against you or anyone else. -- Atama頭 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean that Atama. In fact, I already have stepped away. I have not mentioned the COI issues again either. My concern though is that editor Richard Keatinge won't be able to edit the article effectively, and make the type of major changes he also believes are required, to bring it 'up to standard.' That is all I have ever said is needed. That has always been a major factor in this article and root cause to the dispute. Psyc12 & iss246 need to just let Richardkeatinge make some bold edits, in my opinion without reverting or opposing him every step of the way. He is a good editor and I think he will make the article more encyclopedic, if he feels he is able to do so. Finally I don't think psyc12's accusations below are fair or accurate, and I find their comments pretty offensive actually, but anyway. My editing on a 'range of different articles' has been solid. Thanks for your fair assessment Atama. I'll leave it at that.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama. If I might add one more suggestion. Mrm7171 has a tendency to stick mention of I/O psychology in places where other editors feel it doesn't belong (e.g., epidemiology), insert their opinion rather than sources, or mis-cite sources (I gave a diff above). If they agree that if someone corrects such things, they will not undo the correction and argue about it, then this issue would be resolved. Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair. Right now I've been suggesting that Mrm7171 not focus on conflicts of interest, and use dispute resolution to settle arguments about content, and to not attack references to SOHP because they're from SOHP and not based on merit. To then declare that Mrm7171 not be allowed to include mention of I/O psychology, and be denied the ability to argue for such inclusions based on merit (and use dispute resolution to settle it) would be hypocrisy. If such a thing were to be implemented, it should be done as a community ban and should be two-sided. If Mrm7171 is to stay away from inserting such information, then the two of you should be warned to stay away from inserting SOHP-related information.

My concern is a long-running conduct issue from Mrm7171, which is targeting the two of you relentlessly. I'm not as concerned with what content Mrm7171 is interested in inserting. My goal isn't to take a side in a content dispute, and I don't feel that it's within my scope as an administrator to do so, nor do I think it's right to do that. If Mrm7171 causes friction elsewhere on the encyclopedia away from you two, that can be dealt with at a later time. -- Atama頭 16:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

Hi, I'm having problems with an editor on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. I have tried to improve the introduction of the article which is at the moment very one sided and certainly not WP:NPOV but although I've proposed my change on the talk page and it contains WP:RS I've had my changes reverted repeatedly by Heicth who refuses to offer constructive comments or engage in a collaborative effort to improve the article. He's stopping me from editing. What can be done please? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken up my suggestion to go to WP:DRN? Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Heicth has been particularly obstructive and objects to me trying to edit the article in any way even with WP:RS. I have tried to collaborate but he refuses. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and such freedom is important. Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The manipulation of Wikipedia by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the Talk:New Kadampa Tradition page and the user page of Kt66. While 3 users (Kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) were patiently discussing, agreeing and editing the article in a careful manner, Truthsayer62 deleted most of the academic material in the article. Also note the shenanigans of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the Talk:Dorje Shugden Controversy talk page, he just creates new threads to obscure previous discussion while completely lying about the nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (despite recent consensus), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of NKT blogs as references. Heicth (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case. Heicth is uncooperative. He clearly doesn't want to improve the article. The other editors he mentions are sympathetic to his view of the controversy so of course they are going to agree. How is it possible to improve the article with alternative reliably sourced view points when one editor guards the article and refuses to allow the inclusion of material that he doesn't agree with?Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing decisions operate by consensus. If the discussion is between you (1 person) and those of a different opinion (more than 1), at best, it will be a stalemate. The best thing you can do is go to the article talk page and persuasively argue why your edits are an improvement. Win other editors over with your logical argument and reliable sources. Consensus rules and if, should you gain consensus, an editor still is obstinate, the next step is dispute resolution WP:DRN, not AN/I. This isn't a forum to come to get editors you disagree to change their minds or get blocked. Content disputes get resolved on article talk pages and, should that fail, dispute resolution forums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz, does it seem right that one person on one side of a controversy should aggressively protect an article from the inclusion of WP:RS that would improve the article and make it more balanced, fair and accurate? I'm not being protectionist, my edit is fair and includes both sides of the controversy, stating views that I myself do not accept. If it takes days and days of effort to make one change to a Wikipedia article because of one editor's intransigence, people will stop taking an interest in Wikipedia and the quality of the articles will suffer as a result. For one person to block change cannot be fair and to be lone voice of one side of the controversy makes getting consensus extremely difficult. The article remains biased and inaccurate while one person protects that inaccuracy. Heicth is insulting and refuses to collaborate or change the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62, for better or worse, Wikipedia admins do not make conduct decisions on what you or I (or anyone) thinks is "right" but what WP policy and guidelines support or forbid. I agree that editors shouldn't own articles and prevent other editors from contributing but unless there is disruptive editing going on (like edit warring or personal attacks), gaining consensus for your proposed changes on the article talk page is best way to go because you'll have that support backing your change. That advice goes for any editor. If you want to push the issue further, you can launch an WP:RfC but those only tend to resolve disputes if there is a fair amount of editors participating (say, a dozen) and I'm not sure how many people are working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I understand. At the moment there are only really three other editors on the article, all go whom share a particular view of this controversy. What is the procedure if an individual or even a group of people are attached to their views and actively oppose changes to an article? What if consensus cannot be gained or edits are blocked? Does that mean that the article has to remain one sided? Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again Liz. By the way, Truthsayer62 is again lying. It is not just me opposing him. User:CFynn just addressed him on the article's talk page.Heicth (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

After Liz's comment, Truthsayer62 is now pretending to be a new user, March22nd, (same specific argument about introduction, making a big deal of how to sign, providing an edit summary for talk page comments) or brought in this fellow NKT editor. Come on Wikipedia, ban these guys like the Scientologists were banned. Even Truthsayer62 admitted there is consensus. Heicth (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth - If you have good reason to believe March22nd is a sock puppet of Truthsayer62 and that these two accounts are being are being abusively operated by the same person - then you can report it to Sockpuppet investigations - but so far the new user March22nd has only made one edit - and that on an article talk page. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. I am not March22nd. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

The manipulation of Wikipedia by the New Kadampa cult is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Wikipedia). Many other editors have struggled for years with cultists like Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). I documented my struggles on this ANI page. If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of tiring out his opponents, despite Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, consensus etc., we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Wikipedia as just another NKT blog. I propose that Truthsayer62 be banned from any topic related to Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, which sadly seems to be his life's work according to both his user page and edit history. Heicth (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

if you are really in favour of reliably sourced material and neutral edits, why did you block my reliably sourced and neutral edit? There's nothing in the introduction of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article that explains what the controversy is because it's full of one sided information on why Dorje Shugden is a spirit. It doesn't explain the other point of view that is the other side of the controversy. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous problems, and have been for years, with the articles on Dorje Shugden, the Dorje Shugden controversy, and the New Kadampa Tradition. There are now quite a number of very reputable academic sources on these subjects available, and I think good balanced articles could be written relying only on such sources. However it seems these articles will inevitably be edited by zealous devotees of Dorje Shugden amd/or the NKT to bring these articles as close as they can to their own POV.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed the article edit history, Heicth, but it seems like Truthsayer62 is saying that he can't make edits that "stick", without being reverted, so I question how much influence he has had on the articles in question. I think a topic ban at this stage is not warranted if you are reverting most of his edits. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with Chris Fynn obviously. And the comments of Kt66 elsewhere. Heicth (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching these articles for years and edit warring, sockpuppetry and so on have been going on all that time on the Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, New Kadampa Tradition and several other related articles — carried on by apparent NKT and WSS members on one side, and their detractors (some probably ex-members of those organisations) on the other ~ with the occasional uninvolved but interested editor thrown in. Each side in these edit wars has their own partisan agenda and seemingly nearly infinite zeal and time to spend. Frankly to me it looks unlikely that NPOV will ever be achieved. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty pessimistic. So are you for this topic ban or not?Heicth (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

These are all false accusations making clear that Heicth is aggressive and non-cooperative. He won't accept any edit I propose as he is simply trying to ban a neutral point of view, now by trying to ban me. He has reverted every edit, including the ones I proposed on the talk page and asked for comments on. This is unreasonable. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Fynn already addressed your claims of "neutral point of view" on the talk page. And you are a WP:SPA, by your own admission on your user page. Neither of the "two" users, Truthsayer62 or March22nd (who are obviously linked) seem to understand Chris Fynn's post on the talk page. March22nd for example keeps pushing a primary source written by Kelsang Gyatso. And Truthsayer62 on this ANI page falsely keeps harping about "neutral". Truthsayer62's view of "neutral" is deleting academic information from Kapstein, Dreyfus and Thurman. What other behavior is necessary before someone is topic banned? Heicth (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod attacking everyone at Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans

Per WP:BOOMERANG, I'll take the hit on this and I'm totally cool with that, but an admin needs to jump in at Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans, where Johnbod's been ad hominem attacking any user (a 3O volunteer as well as 2 longterm editors aside from me) who have dared to tried to fix his article. I bit back as hard as I can, myself, but the other editors have been overly patient with these constant snipes. I don't personally mind that Johnbod has now taken to wikistalking my talkpage, kind of a badge of honor for me, but he's gotten so bad another longterm editor now wants his userpage deleted. That's too far, and as I say I am willing to take my own hit just to have an admin look at this.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice if an admin could remove the gross personal attack (with no content relevant to the article) on me by another editor (diff), which Kintetsubuffalo has twice reverted the removal of (once and twice). He is I think no stranger on this page (ANI I mean). He started this off by removing two quoted words, referenced at the end of the sentence, which it became clear he had not noticed, from a DYK then on the main page. When I saw this some 12 hours later, I reverted with an explanatory edit summary. He then added two cite tags (for what was already cited) with an abusive edit summary, and continue to edit war and rant on the talk page despite being told many times on the article's and his talk pages that they were referenced at the end of the sentence, and always had been. User:Andy Dingley then joined in, also repeatedly demanding the refs that were already there, and soon joining the matter to his long-standing crusade against Wikimedia UK with a purely personal attack. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think people bringing up the WMUK stuff helped anything but where did Andy Dingley demand refs? I only see comments that the location of the refs and the wording was confusing. Nil Einne (talk)`

• es: tag cn - if this is so obvious, it will be easy for the most knowledgeable editor to add a citation to the appropriate existing ref and resolve this issue amicably
• re-adds cite tags, with es: rm peacock tag. Sourced statements further down indicate that these terms aren't unexpected or unreasonable, merely that we still need to cite their provenance)
• reverts to restore citation needed tags
• Lengthy response on his talk page, in response to my pleas that he actually look at the article; "Now I think they're probably fine to be there, but they should have cites close enough to them to support those specific terms, if they're being used as direct quotes like this, contra to PEACOCK. I believe that you are able to add such cites. I am not. The source ref is apparently an hour-long YouTube video, which I simply don't have time to watch, but I believe that you already have..." - he is confusing the next ref (to the lecture on You Tube), at the end of the next sentence, because he just hasn't looked with any degree of attention, but continues to revert, and at the end of this diff begins his personal attacks.

Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins, why is there no action against this editor? They think they are better than others and think it is acceptable to talk down to everyone. Lesion (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not resolved. This editor seems to have a nice habit of searching peoples' user pages for any information which they can then try and use to push others down. It is actually disgraceful behavior since this editor is supposedly representing WMUK. Lesion (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's been no administrative action because there have been so few specifics offered. The opening post by Kintetsubuffalo provides zero diffs. The only link is to the talk page generally. They don't even provide a link to their alleged misconduct. Other admins may be willing to dig deeper, but, me, I got distracted by the pretty pictures in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not really involved in that issue above. I was taken aback by the user's tone on WT:MED, which to my understanding was entirely unprovoked. About a day later I decided to look through the user's contribs to get a better idea of their behavior, and the pottery talk page pasted above was the first thing there. I suggested, in good faith that they might be having a bad week and are snapping at people, however from the responses to this suggestion, I conclude that this is normal behavior for them. The incident left me a bit disillusioned that editors are apparently happy to search through user pages just so they can try and talk down to others, for no good reason. Lesion (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just glancing at the article talk page and user talk page (I'm not an expert in Chinese ceramics) this looks like a content dispute that accelerated due to incivility. We have very, very experienced editors here and perhaps they do not like their edits to be challenged. The only bad behavior I see here is impatience which doesn't exactly violate WP guidelines. Maybe a reminder is in order that WP is a collaboration involving editors with different knowledges and experiences and we should try to cooperate rather than ridicule those who challenge us? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It is more than that. In a separate incident, the user randomly decided to search through my user page and then talk down to me. They think they are better than others and they think they can speak to people however they want. By your inaction, you are sending them a clear message that that behavior is completely OK. Well it is not OK. Suggest a token 24 hour ban so either they get the message or there can be a formal log in their journey to permanent ban which this attitude will inevitably lead to in the fullness of time. Lesion (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Complaint regarding User:KageTora

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

---

I have a complaint about User:KageTora. It regards a request for a Chinese translation as my Chinese is only at a lower-intermeidate level here, however User:KageTora responded with a deliberate wrong translation full of swear words and rude connotations. Proof can be seen in a google translation here. I am not an admin, but is this a blockade offence or a worth a warning at least? --Holbrook West Parish (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My Chinese is zero, so I'd really like somebody who can read it to comment here. (Heimstern, where are you?) I don't trust Google Translate very much, but still, it surely couldn't have pulled that lot out of thin air. If Google's translation is even remotely accurate, I believe the user needs a shot across the bow of some kind: a block or at the very least (considering they're a contributor of many years with a clean block log) a sharp nursery word and perhaps a time-off from the Reference Desk. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

Bish, I think the likelihood of an editor or admin who is fluent in Chinese wandering through AN/I in the next 24 hours is pretty low (unless Heimstern responds to your shout-out). If you have doubts, I'm sure you can offer a fair warning based on what you've seen. If it is truly a dire situation, that response can serve as a follow-up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit. The cow isn't on the ice, as the more colourful of my countrymen have it, and we're far from completely lacking in Chinese-proficient editors and admins. Heim isn't editing currently, but I've e-mailed him. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

@Anna Frodesiak: might be a good candidate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Philg88 is your best choice. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, in picking up the ping. The boxed text in the next section is a reasonably accurate translation of what the Chinese at the help desk page says. I would class it more as a rant than a personal attack on anyone. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, there do seem to be some rather rude words there, as well as some general sarcasm. But I wasn't aware that it was appropriate to use the reference desk as a general translation board, anyway, especially not for something that looks pretty thoroughly commercial, so I'm having a hard time thinking this would be very actionable. (To be fair, my Chinese isn't at the level I can distinguish very well just how bad the language is.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Heim, thanks for commenting, but as long as we have a Reference Desk of course people are going to use it for all sorts of things. They may deserve to be told they're in the wrong place, but not to be trolled like that, as long as they themselves aren't merely trolling. I'll write a somewhat sharp comment to KageTora to that effect tomorrow. I'm just dropping off to sleep here. Bishonen | talk 01:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

Just read through that rant and it is certainly not the most civil comment. Translates to

Is your baby 3-5 years old? a fat fucking asshole (the words are somewhat open to translation, but this is fairly commonly used) who wears extra large diapers? If so, please send me a friend request and receive plenty of spam. Share with your friends and have them forever hate you for sharing their email details so they can receive even more junk mail.

Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a place to come to get free, commercial (!) translations from people who do this for a living. I did give a warning to the OP, with words to that effect. And you admin people need to get out a bit more often. You remind me of Californian schoolgirls in their little clique. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be fair to warn an OP, but it's not fair to pull a Hungarian Phrasebook-style prank on him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did make sure the OP knew that the translation offered may not be to his/her satisfaction, and the person in question appears to have done the necessary checking up, which I assumed everyone with common sense would have done, hence this little conversation we are having here. Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization of volunteer editors. We don't give out freebies, when we would normally get paid in real life. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Plain speaking is required—if a "go away" reply is needed for a ref-desk question, give the reply in a manner that is civil and understandable. You do not have to agree with what has been said here, but you do need to agree to not repeat anything like that at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We give away a free encyclopedia -- Amazon currently lists the 2010 Britannica for $7,599.99. [52]. (Reverting close by Medeis.) If an editor does not wish to reply to a reference desk request, they should simply not reply to a reference desk request. NE Ent 11:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If I didn't do what i did, somebody else would come along and offer a faithful translation, and then we get people thinking it's fine to ask us for translations for whatever for their own commercial/financial gain, while there are people in this world who do this sort of stuff for a living (myself included). I do not agree that I have done anything wrong. Sure, maybe I could have just put a post up saying "We do not offer translations for commercial/financial gain, being a free encyclopaedia, and not a translation service." But I didn't. I did leave a message which should, by anyone who can speak English, be understandable as a reference to the fact that the translation was not entirely faithful to the original, and just as I hoped, the OP decided to check - I was perfectly hoping the OP would do that, before posting the 'translation' online. This is a case of AGF, which I guess we could change to APHCS - 'Assume People Have Common Sense'. Issue dropped, or are we going to continue with this nonsense? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What you should have done is say "this is not suitable for Wikipedia" and directed them to Google Translate or similar, instead of basically WP:BITEing in such a rude manner. Despite you and your chum Medeis trying to dodge this issue, you need to realize that your behavior has not been acceptable. GiantSnowman 11:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

On Sundays, I run a fruit & vegetable stall in the market. How about popping by one day and having a bag of free apples, or something, while you watch my children starve? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Absurd attack on wonderful contributor. μηδείς (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Medeis. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The question has been asked elsewhere, anyway. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Nyttend Are you saying KageTora's behavior is acceptable? NE Ent 13:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. No administrative intervention is going to occur. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC

Not what I asked. Not all issues raised at this community discussion board will necessarily be resolved by use of admin tools; in fact, it's frequently better if they aren't. That does not mean it's appropriate to prematurely close a discussion prior to consensus being reached. So I'll repeate the question: is KageTora's behavior acceptable: not following the WP:SPEAKENGLISH guideline and engaging in personal attacks contrary to WP:NPA? NE Ent 14:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How, in Heaven's name, can this have been considered a personal attack? Anyone with any common sense would know that what I wrote was a warning - albeit cryptic and all but incomprehensible to the likes of yourself - a warning saying, "When you are running a business, don't try to get a free translation for advertising, from a website that uses volounteer contributors to make an encyclopaedia. I have no idea who you are, who you think you are, or who you want to be, but what I did was well within the realms of common sense. Close this discussion, because I am really sick to death of people who just type to make themselves feel superior. This is bordering on trolling. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the standard isn't "common sense" but civility. If editors at the Reference Desks give jokey or misleading answers to questions, their usefulness to readers is nil. This was a case where you clearly should have just not responded instead of posting a snarky, bad translation to make some kind of point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid the ref desks are saturated with jokes and ownership issues. That's why so many editors have been driven from them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I brought up problems I saw at the Reference Desks here once but it got no response. I think every editor has their editing niche and no one was interested in ousting troublesome editors who comment on every question (whether they know what they are talking about or not) or who provide opinions instead of factual answers, based on Wikipedia articles. I agree it's a mess that needs an overhaul. But that requires interested editors willing to give their time and attention to making that happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. GiantSnowman 20:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • To me that looks like a violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. That's definitely not acceptable behavior. -- Atama頭 17:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User refuses to respond

On the article Odesza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which I created, I had a bit of information has to how the duo got their name. The user RuhiAndre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted it. I undid his edit, explaining that I had listed a source for the information, and unless he had a counter-source the info should stay. He has ignored me and gone on to delete the info 3 times. I also have my suspicions that he is close to the subject, as his only contributions to this site were trying to get the article "Odesza" created for nearly a year at this point. His requests had been denied repeatedly, but he kept trying religiously. Now, after the article has been created (by me), he claims to know things only someone close to the subject would know, as he made the claim that the info was wrong, but could not prove it.

On the edit history page I specifically outlined why the bit of information could not be removed, as the information had a source and he had no counter-source except for his own word. I also posted on his talk page days ago my suspicions of him being close to subject, but I have apparently been ignored. He has been extremely unresponsive.

I think he should be banned from editing that article, as it has become a nuisance. --Bathes (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt by you to engage at the article talk page, and your one-sentence note at their talk page didn't have much in the way of good faith. How about asking, politely, for them to explain why they're making that edit and if they have any reliable sources that you might not be aware of? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Rather than constantly reverting RuhiAndre (which is edit warring, regardless of which of you has the more 'correct' position), you ought to begin by engaging them on their talk page or the article's. Although you did explain yourself in the edit summary not all editors read edit summaries, and a proper discussion can only really be had on a talk page. If they don't respond to that, it might make sense to seek outside help again. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bathes: I strongly suggest that you read WP:BRD which covers the kind of situation you find yourself in now. I think it will helpful for you. -- Atama頭 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Newbie running riot with twinkle

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

---

Newbie running riot with twinkle generating dozens of inappropriate and/or irrelevant tags. Warned & asked to stop, but is powering on at more than 1 edit per minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AvNiElNi-nA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AvNiElNi-nA

Pdfpdf (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I had stop doing that. AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear sock of User:Smauritius! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I had stop doing that. - Thank you. Now please go back and undo all of your edits that have placed Notability and BLP sources tags. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Krimuk90 please present sock puppetry evidence at WP:SPI…i had been watching the above account since creation which is closely after the last checkuser sweep. User:Hell in a Bucket — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.240.237 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the contribution history and reverted a few. Although some might barely be justified, many of those are accompanied by tags that aren't, and he has messed up a lot of articles. Anyone want to do a mass revert? Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a week. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, too many articles were messed up – someone should do a mass revert. Mojoworker (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What a mess. Let me go and spend some time taking care of this too. I have some free time, so lets make use of it. → Call me Hahc21 07:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass revert done. → Call me Hahc21 07:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Well there you go! I complained about a nuisance. Next thing I see it's changed topic and subject area to edit-waring - totally unrelated to the nuisance edits. And then the guy's banned for edit-waring. Well, yes, in those circumstances, that's the appropriate chain-of-events. But they were/are completely independent of, and unrelated to, the nuisance edits.
My point? (Points?) (Yes, I'm a pedant.) They are two separate issues/incidents. Putting them in the same item implies they address the same issue. They don't.
Who cares? Probably only me ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Uncooperative editing by Locke Cole

Continuously defiant edit warring at Scarlett Johansson, despite warnings. Editors have asked him to respect the talk page, but he simplyignores out of spite. edit history of Johansson. Rusted AutoParts 04:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks to be a content disupte. Locke Cole is adding in referenced information about Scarlett Johansson's pregnancy, Hulabaloo Wolfowitz and Rusted Auto Parts are removing it, and replacing it with the hidden text <!-- Please do not add pregnancy until there's confirmation. These sources are going by reports, not from anything the actress or her rep said. --> .The two sources in question http://collider.com/avengers-2-scarlett-johansson-pregnant/ and http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/scarlett-johansson-pregnancy-delay-filming-avengers-sequel-report-article-1.1710262 are used to support Locke Cole's entry. I can't see collider.com, but nydailynews.com is reporting that she is indeed pregnant, however, the wording is carefully written and it looks to be tabloidish. Perhaps the article should be locked while this is sorted out.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) has been talked to, repeatedly, about imposing his own higher standards on article sources that policy does NOT support (currently we're arguing over at the talk page for Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). He was blocked for six months, and only after insisting his behavior would change was he finally unblocked after a month. We've been around and around on the issue of article sources and while I admit to being frustrated, I find myself wondering if he's simply not able to understand, and if his recent unblock was a good idea given the unwillingness to accept that he alone does not get to decide what is an acceptable source, especially when the community here already has WP:RS which goes into detail on what is and is not a reliable source.

A few months back we had a similar issue over at Avengers: Age of Ultron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which ultimately ended up with the debated statement (complete with sources) going in. But not until weeks of disruption, revert warring, and so forth. Now he's engaging in personal attacks, saying "It's evident Locke is still burned up by the Age of Ultron spat [...]". Truthfully I'm stunned at the amount of resistance being made over something so well-sourced. Seriously, if it were something more contentious with only one weak source, I'd understand this level of resistance. But we have dozens of sources, and just in the past week an additional source which would (in my view) seem to cement the issue into the realm of indisputable fact. Despite this he insists on "confirmation" (whatever that even means) beyond what our sources provide (which is not what we do here).

Given the rise in personal attacks, the attempt to bully me by threatening to bring me to AN/I (which upon arriving here, I see he's already posted a notice about me further above, without informing me on my talk page as required), and the apparent inability to learn and follow our policies and guidelines as it relates to verifiability, no original research and sourcing, I felt the need to bring it here for a wider discussion and hopefully some kind of long-term solution. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources appear to be tabloids. Let's think outside the box for a minute here: I'm going to assume that you follow Scarlet Johansson's career, etc. What is your sense of the veracity of the rumors? I saw one source photo which alleged to show a "baby bump", but there wasn't one. So is this on the level or is just a false rumor like it was 2 or 3 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to bring the debate about the sources here so much as the behavioral issues Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) is displaying. But suffice it to say, WP:NOTTRUTH (an extension of WP:V) covers this: if we can verify that our sources say what our article is saying, that's all we really care about. You'll note that in the edit I tried to make (which has been subsequently reverted by RAP) that I used the language "[...] reported [...]", which is us using our voice to say that this is simply what our sources are saying (not that we're claiming it to be true). The scrutiny of pictures of actresses for "baby bumps" is original research, and not allowed here. Again, verifiability, NOT truth. We have a dozen sources all saying this, it's not for us to decide whether or not it's true, our sources have already done that. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's a legitimate discussion as to whether reports of the pregnancy should go in to the article, but the issue really isn't behavior it's a lack of consensus and low participation in the discussion. Both editors would do better to focus on the topic at hand and perhaps get additional input rather making personal comments about each other and rehashing old disputes. If raising the issue here doesn't bring sufficient attention, then a rfc might be useful. NE Ent 15:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more like WP:BLPN should be tried. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's sourced by E!, which is owned by NBCUniversal, so I don't think there's much of case it's not a reliable source for Entertainment news. NE Ent 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP still requires a consensus on the sourcing and how it is presented. So, get the consensus, if there is a "legitimate discussion" to be had. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC) As a side issue, pregnancy is entertainment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP doesn't require a consensus prior to editing, only if there's a dispute, but then that's not much different from a non-BLP issue. The problem here is, does consensus consider views of people who aren't applying policy correctly (competence is required)? I mean, you have a few editors on the talk page there insisting on "confirmation" which is above and beyond what the community has put down at WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR (and to a lesser extent, WP:NPOV). I'm beginning to lean towards ignoring objections that are based on personal requirements instead of site-wide policy, as they're both unhelpful (no effort to compromise exists) and set a terrible precedent for other articles ("if I don't like the site-wide policy, I can enact my own personal views on the article talk page!").

Our sources say she is pregnant (the initial sources said "reportedly", but more recently we've seen interviews with folks involved in productions she's acting in saying things like the pregnancy hasn't affected production in any major way, etc), it's a BLP issue without sources to be sure, but irrelevant since we do have sources and a lot of them... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue because it is a BLP and there is an editing dispute about the quality and presentation of sourcing -- BLP thus requires DR to sort that out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Normal Wikipedia practice requires consensus, and Talk:Scarlett Johansson exists to provide the forum to achieve that. The special provisions of BLP for "contentious" material surely do not apply to whether a 29 year old woman is pregnant or not? The E! report [53] is just shy of three weeks old, and there's been no retraction, or denial, so there's not particularly wrong with adding it per the special BLP provisions. Whether it is encyclopedic or not is, of course, a matter for discussion. NE Ent 17:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's far from a mechanical yes/no or a black/white issue. BLP for good or ill gives a wider play to editorial discretion, privacy, dignity. It raises issues like 'what if this rumor is wrong' 'how will it look, if tomorrow it is disproven' or 'because of the privacy issue, this may remain forever, unconfirmed.' Pregnancy, its occurrence, and its termination is not a matter of privacy? Not a matter of dignity? Not a matter of contention? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Above comment edited to remove leading space that messed up display on mobile devices. --NellieBly (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC))

I consider it relevant for individuals notable in part because of their appearance (e.g. Actors, dancers). I'd be much more inclined to not include for women prominent for other reasons (e.g. Mary Barra). Taken the to extreme, we could argue that there should be no "Personal life" section in any biography, but longstanding practice is Wikipedia does include that stuff. Additionally, we routinely include reliably sourced predictions about the future that may turn out to be incorrect (e.g. Climate change). NE Ent 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, sometimes it might be "relevant" sometimes not. And saying we cannot have personal life sections, if we do not report this matter is far from reasonable. In the end, under policy, "the routine" is no replacement individualized, considered judgment in such things. A discussion, which this board is ill-suited for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems fairly self-contradictory to continue to discuss something on a board while claiming the board is not suited for it. NE Ent 18:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not in the least, since I am not the one who raised the particulars of the sourcing here, but kept to what the policy considerations and issues are, and the appropriate forums to pursue them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC) This is a fine place to discuss whether BLP applies to a BLP. It does in the many ways I outlined. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Table this discussion for a few months. If nature holds true to form, I suspect there will be more sources speaking about a "bump". If they don't, well.....Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please note that the above used "table" as used in US English (to delay discussion) as apposed to UK English (to discuss immediately). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting -- so what would go in the uk portion of {{engvar|en-uk=???|en-us=table}}? NE Ent 17:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You'd use "shelve", and you'd do that by appointing a Royal Commission. Thincat (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• This makes me smile. Can't say I've done that a lot lately when I come here. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems eerily familiar to a [discussion] that got really heated seven months ago over what daily newspapers and magazines can be used for reliable sources. There were some editors who didn't want to accept any magazine focused on entertainment news as a reliable source and so this might be comparable to wanting a "higher standard". The link included is to a WP:RSN conversation but I believe there was also an RfC on the subject but I can't locate it now. From what I remember, entertainment or popular magazines can be used as sources if they include a named source (and not "friends say" type of attribution) but I would read through the discussion carefully because this ground has been covered at least once before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But surely the only daily newspapers that would cover Scarlett Johansson's personal life would be tabloids. Let's face it, she does not do anything notable enough to have her personal life covered in major international newspapers such as the Financial Times.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

To add perspective, hopefully: It's not a matter of questioning whether entertainment-news outlets are reliable sources, but of what they're basing their reporting on this in this case. Let's not forget, WP:RS isn't about the outlets themselves but about those outlets' reporting on specific things. In this case, the pregnancy story is all based on anonymous claims, i.e. RUMORS. Let's remember, this is not the first time anonymous sources claimed she was pregnant? Here, read this from People: "Scarlett Johansson: How a Pregnancy Rumor Can Start". Until there's confirmation, an encyclopedia — which has higher standards than daily / weekly journalism — does not claim something as definitive, inarguable fact. There is no deadline. Our job is to be right, not first. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH. Your assessment of the sources' sources is original research. It's one thing to look at, for example, a grocery store tabloid and say it's not reliable for use here. It's another thing entirely to look at something like Time magazine and say "well it's not telling us who their sources are" (which we don't, and shouldn't, care about in the first place). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You absolutely should care about sourcing, especially BLP's. While sourcing is a requirement, it is not a guaranteed admission ticket. Regardless of sourcing, if your gut feeling is that the fact may be shaky, you should not include it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is my recollection from the conversation I linked to (which spread over several additional talk pages and noticeboards), Wikipedia doesn't condemn "tabloids" but "tabloid journalism". Some people participating in the discussion wanted to have a set list of newspapers and magazines that would be considered "tabloid" and would be unacceptable but a) it proved impossible to come up with an agreed-upon list of what a tabloid is and isn't and b) as I said, WP condemns a style of reporting, not specific sources of news. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If we took the word of entertainment news (even that published by branches of supposedly reliable sources lmike NBC), we'd have to add a recent pregnancy section to the article of virtually every woman of note, up to and including Queen Elizabeth II. What passes for a baby bump these days could be anything from a good meal to perimenstrual bloating. Until the woman herself announces her pregnancy, we should not mention anything about it. And we should never, and I mean NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, allude to pregnancy termination without a direct quote from the woman in question as reported in a fully reliable source and not a tab. Good God: imagine the shitstorm that would follow even the slightest hint that a notable woman had an abortion - now imagine the real emotional harm we would be causing to her if she had been trying to conceive and miscarried. Imagine if some Eric Rudolph type decided she had to die for her "sin". --NellieBly (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you post an example of a claim confirmed by E! (or People) that a woman was pregnant that turned out not to be true? NE Ent 18:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruption

Okay, the back and forth continues, but the editor in question still refuses to acknowledge policy or guideline on the topic (and is effectively encouraging others to join him in ignoring policy/guideline). Is there some point where wasting other editors' time because you simply don't like something is considered disruptive? Because I think we're quickly approaching that point. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, it's not required an editor explicitly acknowledge policy. Sometimes editors have to accept they're just never going to agree on something and stop going back and forth about it. At that point, it's best to disengage and seek additional help. NE Ent 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, Locke, you have alot of nerve saying I'm being disruptive. You, who when someone reverts you, you revert back. What were really hitting on the nail is: you don't like it when people disagree with you. And as a result started a massive problem all with the aim to jab at me.

• at least you're not pushing your own personal requirements like RAP is (and I'd strongly encourage you to re-think the "[RAP] is absolutely correct"
• Please stop trying to change site-wide policy and guideline on JUST the pages YOU edit. This is not RAP-opedia, it's Wikipedia
• RAP is under the mistaken delusion that any source MUST be from the mouth of "ScarJo", her publicist, or her doctor; e.g. a primary source, exactly the kind we avoid here

Constantly stating WP:CIR is you implying people are stupid, so that's just being a jerk, when were all trying to civilly discuss the issue. It seems you desperately want people to agree with you, when they don't. Pregnancy is a WP:BLP issue, so it needs more than People reporting on it. Your mean spirited approach to this, with your "competence is required" rants and your filibuster tactics, is what's more disruptive. It doesn't benefit the discussion in the slightest and makes you come off as an arrogant person. It's unfair to me and the other editors when you insinuate we're incompetent simply because we have a different view, and it means you're acting on bad faith. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC) === Interaction ban between Rusted AutoParts and Locke Cole ===

There's no way we can converse without someone accusing of something. It's best for the site if we just didn't interact with each other. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scarlett Johansson for proof. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So stop interacting -- focus on the content and policy without referring to other editor's actions, perceived motions, etc. NE Ent 02:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not important to this discussion and has been answered, we should move on now. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

disruption (continued)

Rusted AutoParts, please follow/remember WP:KETTLE. When you have been Accused, dont accuse back. It seems like this discussion is inappropriately moving onto Rusted Autoparts. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

SpongebobLawyerPants and WP:COMPETENCE

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

Blocked some weeks ago for disrupting an AfD, much time and energy has been expended in an effort to rehabilitate this editor, but it has not stuck. Editor continues to upload unlicensed images even after having file permissions and copyright issues explained to them multiple times by multiple editors. Now they are inserting "horrific" and "abominable" into random articles [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], and at one point, "sexadactyl". A number of editors have gone out of their way not to bite this newbie, but at this point I think sheer WP:COMPETENCE comes into play, this editor will likely not become a productive one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Though I'm not sure how much is a competence issue, and how much is just plain trolling - these latest edits look more like the latter to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that the recent edits are trolling, or that they're to 'random articles'. They're all about mythical or legendary aliens or monsters, and to be honest from the existing descriptions they do sound kind of horrific. Saying so may well be original research or unencyclopedic, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily deliberate disruption. And sexdactly, although not a standard word, means 'six fingered'(er, not sex fingered as I originally wrote). I don't know if the beings in that article were supposed to have six fingers, but it seems plausible.

Have you discussed these particular edits with SpongebobLawyerPants? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

They were advised of the preference for encyclopedic language although it was not done formally since they seem to read and respond to edit summaries. Their inability to comprehend policy is frustrating. After advisories regarding WP:FRINGE sources and reliability, they persist in adding problematic sourcing [59], [60]. And after having image upload policy patiently explained to them again and again, they just don't or won't get it. Is the appearance of ignorance unintentional or willful? I honestly don't know, but it shows no signs of abating. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello LuckyLouie, isnt "sexadactyl" another word for "6-fingered" ? I didnt use "6-fingered" because it sounds too colloquial and of course i didnt know that "sexadactyl" is actually a "dirty" word. Yes, i inserted "horrifying" , "terrifying" and "horrific" into articles, but not random ones. They include bizarre creatures and extraterrestrial beings. I use such words to dramatize the style of the article. It wasnt my intention to violate the neutrality of these articles by using such words. Regarding the image thing: I still dont know what requirements to meet to successfully upload a picture. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the complete history, including a number of inconsistencies in how they discuss from day to day, and other things I won't get into via WP:BEANS, I would conclude this is not only a troll, but a troll who has been here before. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed (incidentally, someone with six fingers is, unsurprisingly, a hexadactyl). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I mixed it up with other languages where "sex" means six (Spanish "sexto / sexta" means sixth e.g.). Thats an contretemps, because in the same article a man claims to have been sexually harassed by an 6-fingered extraterrestrial being and in THIS article i said "sexadactly", thinking that this means "6-fingered". But the right expression seems to be "hexadactyl". LuckyLouie probably thought that "sexadactyl" was a kinky innuendo, but didnt intend this. I dont know whether this will change LuckyLouie´s opinion, but i apologize for this awkward mistake. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

SO why didn't you write "six fingered"? Not as horrifically abominable-sounding as ""sexadactyl"? Paul B (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Because it sounds too colloquial, i have already mentioned this above. But i would be more interested in LuckyLouie´s opinion. Im still thankful for your contributions in the Voronezh UFO article, but dont you think it is exaggeratedn to call someone "troll" because he did a linguistic mistake ? Im an honest person and i guarantee "sexadactyl" was a MISTAKE. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I made useful contributions to the Voronezh UFO article. Unfortunately an alien probe seems to have deleted all memory of it from my mind, and from the article's edit history. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. "Six fingered" is not in any sense "colloquial". It's plain English. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is keeping someone around just because their user name amuses you a valid support? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that a reply to me? If so, this section is becoming very confusing indeed. What on earth are you talking about? Paul B (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@SpongebobLawyerPants: you asked my opinion re your "mistakes". I'm sorry, but someone whose response is "I dont have enough time to read Wikipedia´s enormous guidelines" when told they need to familiarize themselves with the basics of how Wikipedia works will likely always be creating "mistakes" that others will have to clean up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

As i said before: Im thankful for your contributions in the Voronezh article Louie (because Paul B. mistakenly thought this thank was addressed to himself). But you dont have to clean up my mistakes. The "sexadactyl" thing was a random mistake and has nothing to do Wikipedia´s guidelines. Regarding the word "eyewitness": I have seen this word in many other articles. Thats why i mentioned it in the Voronezh article. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The mistake was yours, not mine. Your attempts to sound innocent are increasingly unconvincing and tiresome. Paul B (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• ""horrifying" , "terrifying" and "horrific" into articles, but not random ones. They include bizarre creatures and extraterrestrial beings. I use such words to dramatize the style of the article." - This is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not have "dramatic" articles; it has ENCYCLOPEDIC ones. This language fails WP:NPOV. Also, "I didnt use "6-fingered" because it sounds too colloquial" - it's, as noted, plain English, even were it correct, "sexadactyl", were it a valid word, would be the technical term and, thus, unpreferred. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There are even articles which have a racist tone or "invented" information. You should rather use your competency to improve those articles than complaining about innocuous words like "horrifying" or "terrifying". Using such words doesnt destroy an article´s neutrality. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't mean creating still more crap is justified. And yes, it does make an article non-neutral: "horrifying", "terrifying" and "horrific" are all value judgements, not objective descriptions. (And if those other articles, which I notice are not named, are so bad, fix them.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• • So has this discussion cleared up any concerns about trolling for anyone? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You should be extremely careful about insulting people publicly and calling them "troll". I know i did some mistakes, but you have no right to call me troll. I dont know how high your level of education is, but such insults are considered to be disrespectful. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Lawyerpants you should probably read (yes another policy) WP:NLT before you start skating any further on that thin ice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Spongebob's response to Dennis was uncivil but I don't see how you could possibly see a legal threat in what he said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You cant accuse me of legal threat. Unlike many other editors who want me to be deleted, i highly respect the freedom of expression. Dennis Brown may insult me whenever he wants, i dont care, but he embarrasses himself by permanently accusing other editors of trolling. Thats why i said "You should be extremely careful about" "--SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps an uninvolved admin can now take a look and close this. My opinion, that we are having our collective chains yanked, has not changed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I did a quick scan of their work. Nearly or all of their work is, at best, unencyclopedic non-RS'd work writing about hoaxes. At worst their overall work might be just pulling Wikipedia's leg. Also seems to not have expressed any desire and even expressed disdain for trying to do it right. If, very quickly there is a sincere recognition of the problem, the commitment and (shortly later) effort to learn how to do it better and do so, suggest one more chance. If no, not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Im not an anarchist ignoring any guidelines. I just said i cant read the whole guidelines but become familiar with them gradually by publishing articles or doing useful contributions. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, a bunch of people are telling you what you are doing is not useful, quite the opposite. So, right now do your darndest to try to understand why they are telling you that before you edit further. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Except your contributions are not useful, and you're refusing to listen to everyone telling you this, instead making personal attacks at those who are trying to tell you that your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I respect and listen to your advices. I even apologised for my mistakes. Im a remorseful person and unlike you, i dont call other editors trolls or insult them. You pretend to be a moralizer, but you dont dont even accept apologies or respect newbies, who did some mistakes. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In your post I just see an argument that what you are doing is fine, not acknowledgement of the need to change and commitment for taking steps to do so. Is that your stance? North8000 (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• How about a topic-ban against anything paranormal, UFO, or whatever ... see if we can actually get encyclopedic work out of him for 6 months DP 00:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont know how good or bad the quality of your education level is, but it is not democratic to ban a whole topic or to demand that. You shouldnt call me (or indicate that im) stupid, as you dont even understand the principles of democracy. You should rather read the definition of democracy and stop threatening me permanently with bans. I respect your opinion and advices, but one cannot simply ban a whole topic and insult other editors. I would be ashamed of such a horrible behaviour. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Have i ever called you (or indicated) that you're "stupid"? Suggesting that without proof is a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We have a set of rules you agreed to, and you keep breaking them. A topic ban would allow you to continue to editing the project, but NOT in areas that are causing you problems - indeed, you're about 2 steps away from an indefinite block. A topic ban is your best friend at this moment. DP 12:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dont hide the truth, you said some rude things in my own talk page. But as a democratic and honest person, i even tolerate this. Why dont you unleash the gentleman in you by blocking a new editor who did some mistakes but apologised for that and whose contributions and articles are undeservedly denounced as trolling ? --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please provide a WP:DIFF of anything "rude" that I have ever said on your talkpage - otherwise, one of my colleague admins will unfortunately be quite likely be forced to block you for personal attacks - see this clarifying information on unfounded statements. DP 12:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"...bizarre failure to read about...", i consider that to be rude. This phrase should have been "...bizarre reluctance to read about...", because the first phrase indicates that im illiterate. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to block me, than do it. As i said before: Unleash the gentleman who is lurking deep in your heart. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Misbehavior and goading people into blocking them? This seems like someone who is not here to be constructive. Empty apologies given above with no actual acknowledgement of what they did wrong are insufficient and to me they just reinforce the suggestions given earlier that this editor is playing everyone else here for entertainment value. I'm going to take this editor's most recent suggestion, and block them. -- Atama頭 17:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Evidence is overwhelming that Dennis is correct. Let's get it done and not give this person the satisfaction of tying us up in knots about it. BMK (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support (I'm always available for block review on any block) but as I stated above I already indef-blocked the editor. And yes, it was per the evidence given by many above, including Dennis Brown, as well as the editor's own response to these allegations. -- Atama頭 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed that - obviously a good block. BMK (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wheel/move warring by Betty Logan

Earlier, Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs) moved the page Let It Be (film) to Let It Be (1970 film) without discussion. Seeing this, I requested it be moved back as a undiscussed controversial move at WP:RM. After I made the request Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) moved the page back to its original title and BB properly requested the page be moved by opening a discussion.

After that, however, Betty Logan (talk · contribs) moved the page back to the contested title. Her action is in violation of WP:WHEEL, which prohibits the reversion of another admin's reversion of an administrative action (in this case her reversion of Anthony's reversal of an undiscussed move).

I raised the issue on Betty's talk page but it seems she has no intent to reconsider her wheel warring. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Betty is not an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was the move considered uncontroversial when it contravenes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)? A move against guidelines is, by definition, controversial, and it should not have originally been requested as such. - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment In my defence I moved the article as a formality in good faith as you can see at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Requested_move_3. Per WP:NCF the film project fully disambiguates all non-primary topic film titles i.e. Titanic gets disambiguated to Titanic (1997 film) since the boat is the primary topic and there are other Titanic films. A similar case exists here, since the album is the primary topic and there is more than one film. As a rule film editors just perform these moves as a matter of course since they are not particularly controversial. In this instance another editor moved the article to Let It Be (film) and labelled it as "uncontroversial". Neither Bovine Boy—who raised the issue at the Film project—nor the editor who moved it back indicated the initial move had been challenged. I am sorry if I have caused an inconvenience here, but we generally just carry out these moves automatically unless they are formally challenged since it saves a lot of time, and there was no visible objection to the move either from Anthony or Hot Stop. If Hot Stop had also registered his "oppose" at the move discussion instead of ignoring it obviously I would not have closed the discussion as a formality. Bovine Boy provided me with a diff at the Film project of Hot Stop lodging a complaint about the move after I had undertaken it but that complaint must been cleared from Requested Moves page when I checked it before the move, since only Bovine Boy's original request to move the page remained. Obviously there has been a breakdown in communication along the way but regardless the end result is that the article is now compliant with WP:NCF, and nobody has provided a reason either at the article talk page or my talk page as to what exactly the problem is with the new title. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let It Be (2004 film) also has a Wikipedia article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

unsourced. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no issue here. Two experienced editors worked with WP:NCF and moved the page as needed. If the title of the 2004 film is in doubt, then that can be addressed and the 1970 film moved back, if appropriate. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Update The 2004 film has been nominated at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let It Be (2004 film)). If the article is deleted then the Beatles film can be moved back to its original title; if it survives the AfD then obviously the current disambiguator is indisputably compliant with WP:NFC and all of this is just a storm in a teacup. I recommend letting that run to its conclusion and the issue will be resolved in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Adult supervision needed at Talk:Energetically modified cement

I havent been following closely or participating in the discussion with the involved IPs for a while, but its on my watchlist and the situation appears to be spiraling out of appropriate scope. At least one of the IPs appears to have a COI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've intervened, making my non-admin status clear, and tried to make both parties aware that their flagrant disregard for WP:Civility is inappropriate. The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits -- neither of them has the least clue about how to form a policy argument and the discussion has devolved into constant and voluminous mud-slinging and arguments without traction. Add to that the fact that neither seems inclined to apply indentation or other talk page style convention or organizational feature that might keep the discussion focused and on-track and you have a real mess. It's not exactly an article of high interest for me, but I'll try to stick around and oversee some adjustments to the page to improve its tone and verifiability a bit, though I'm dubious I'll be able to get the two of them to work constructively to improve the page between them. Snow (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me preface my next remark by saying that, as a fully-certified admin, I am fully aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NONASTYWORDSPLEASE, but still: HOLY SHIT, that's the worst-looking talk page I've seen in a while. Can we burn it, via MfD or IAR? Drmies (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• I removed the last rant and left a note on Uncle Karl's talk page. Who is the "other" editor? The 213 IP? I find it very difficult to find specific civility infractions in those walls of words, though IP 71.33.155.41's shouting etc is uncivil enough--their very layout is offensive. Anyway, y'all's efforts are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Short Precis by 213.66.81.80

I hope this helps:

• I really dont want to answer towards TRPoD because his antipathy toward the page goes back some months back and he represents a particularly estreme view of what the entire "promotional debate". Let's just say this is not the first time he has tried to strip the article. Nor is he immune from being warned regarding his aggressive edits to others' works. Just go to his talk page. I note he "watches the page", and stalks my talk page. For ex, I was tidying my talk page and he sent me a very "odd" message on my talk page a couple of evenings back (as if I was a naughty schoolboy "Your will be deemed to be wilfull" language.). And he posted this here, and raised the assertion that it is me with COI ---- at a time it was clear the ANGRY user was losing control.

• I have 35 years material science. I live in Stockholm. Swedish is my first language. On the page, I wrote the section (you'll maybe never heard of it), tribochemisry and the section dealing with pozzolanic concrete chemistry. So, there is at least a flavor of my knowledge base. I have no connection to EMC. As I understand from the AfDs, no one from LTU or Ronin wanted this page, because they have low opinion of Wikipedia.

• This said no one of real material science knowledge has ever questioned the page. Most of the comments have been novices who needed a greater explanation, which because of my love of the material sciences subject, I have willingly given.

• I hope this page is giving greater "exposure" to EMCs. Both in terms sf novice reader and expert readers. I also hope it is aiding to a much deeper resource on material sciences, which Wikipedia is very poor.

• The page already has a "B" rating. I wanted to improve it to a "GA" and even contacted an editor who I really trust called FeydHuxtable. See my talk page.

• This "incident" started about a week ago when a user called KARL attacked MY work stating I was, among others, lying, fake, and that I have no knowledge of the subject. As time went on he made a number of demonstrably bogus comments. When asked to state his sources, all he would do is respond with what you call "wall of Texts". I did not respond to them as they were TLDR.

• But, just as the Snows comments above show, if one throws a little mud, a little might stick. Throw lots, many times and it WILL stick. To the point now where Snow is proving the point by stating

"The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits"

• Snow: I will not be bullied by a poster posting TLDRs to be disruptive. Do you see how many times that user uses the word "ANGER" and "ANGRY"? LIAR, STUPID, FAKE (ALL in CAPS, so the casual visitor cannot help see it)?

• EVERY TIME I have chosen just one of the many wild assertions made, ANGRY user has then deflected (with more walls of texts / TLDRs). The very last post I made before Snow posted his comments, proved it. But now it has been collapsed. So let me show you how "bananas" it has been, AFTER an ENTIRE week of this ANGRY user SHOUTING AT ME. This is what I wrote:

Look, I do not know how much of your gobbledygook you actually read back to yourself. But it just goes on and on. You say:

"I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete."

"This, of course, is slight of hand. The actual energy invested in production of either product would presumably be about the same."

This is completely contradictory. How can it possibly be (sic) "sleight of hand"? Since when does one burn coal expressly to make a waste product? It is just utter gobbledygook. And yet I have then had to endure days upon day of this endless personal attacks by you because I CANNOT understand your logic. You have accused me of lying, or not being a scientist, and basically of being stupid. I ask you to post me one decent question - and all I get is TLDRs again.

This is the "classic" case of a Portland cement "spook" that peddles this nonsense and won't stop. This has gone on for nearly a week. And you won't stop. I said it before, I say it again: it is all too odd and persistent.

• Snow: you do realize that several days ago, he got an immediate LEVEL 4 warning for his personal attacks against me and yet still persisted? Nothing stops him. It is relentless.

• I refute any suggestion what I have written is "promotional". Indeed, please tell me where the section on EMC Activation and Pozzolanic concrete chemistry is promotional.

• There are only two possibilities: The ANGRY user, does not have any knowledge. But then why so persistent and why make such obviously odd points? Or the said ANGRY user does have knowledge and is playing "divisive" and being highly provocative and manipulative. Which, if so, all the more underscores it is Portland Cement industry "spook".

213.66.81.80 (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The incivility at this article has been going on for a year. You can see the heated language at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically Modified Cement ("EMC Cement"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically modified cement (2nd nomination), and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Ronin. User:Jono13 was very confrontational, and so was IP 213 which is clearly the same person. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

While I very much hate to throw in the towel so quickly on solving this dilemma amicably, new facts have come to light which rather tend to suggest that is a hopeless cause. Specifically, the editor currently operating from 213.66.81.80 is an established sockpuppet of the article's creator User:Jono2013, as per this SPI, with additional suspected socks. Both accounts have previous blocks resulting from this sockpuppetry, legal threats, and general uncivil behaviour.

Between the registered account and the IPs, he appears, for the better part of a year, to have remained consistently hostile towards all of the number of editors who have attempted to question the apparently promotional nature of the article and its dubious consistency with regard to WP:V, often leveling personal attacks against them and making accusations of conflict of interest, though he himself seems to have had at least tangential contact with the inventor of the product which is the subject of the article. Further, he refuses to keep discussion focused on the content and its consistency to policy, routinely targeting what he perceives to be deficiencies in the professional credentials of other editors and questioning their involvement in the article and talk processes, though he has been told repeatedly that such not relevant to content discussion.

It is my strong takeaway from my short involvement in the article and my review of the talk page and the article's time in AfD, that the editor in question lacks the basic neutrality on the subject, and requisite respect for his fellow editors, necessary to be involved in the article in a non-disruptive fashion. It is in fact my impression, and one I would dare to venture is shared by most of the other editors involved with the article, that any effort to rescue the article and move it towards a stable state consistent with policy cannot be affected while he is involved there and that a topic ban should be strongly considered by any admin who decides to investigate the matter further. The editor himself should try to recognize that his lack of perspective and the lack of trust the other involved editors have for him is becoming the main driver for renewed calls to delete the article outright, but I rather tend to doubt that he will remove himself from the process.

Edit: I should also note that the other IP involved in the most recent round of mud-slinging, 71.33.155.41, has not exactly been a peach himself, but that Jono2013/213.66.81.80's history of incivility and conflict with other editors very evidently pre-dates the involvement of that editor and in fact goes back to the inception of the article, which, along with the article for the product's creator and articles for competing products, constitute the entirety of his narrow efforts on Wikipedia. Snow (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Snow: I ask you to now please leave this debate. You have had more than your share of comment. The "latest round" of "mudslinging" (your words) implies by using the words "latest round" that I have "invited" or acted poorly against the enormous number of very hostile attacks made against me by ANGRY user. He is the one who was warned to level 4 - I was not. If you look at my edits to "Maproom" and "XFM Skier" last week, they were entirely helpful (I will post them here if you wish). I made it clear to ANGRY user that I would not respond to bullying by way of persistent TLDRS which accused me of being "FAKE", "LYING" "STUPID", on so many occasions half of it could be enough. You say "71.33.155.41, has not exactly been a peach himself" - that is way short of the mark of the attacks I have had to suffer and then get patronised on top. In the meantime, the text below might assist. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope the following assists

• Jono 2013 lived in England and from his posts was a retired biochemistry professor. I was SPI'd because I had collaborated with him very early on in writing the beginnings of the article, and had not disclosed this (I was in those days a complete novice to wikipedia) when I THEN I made the "mistake" of voting in the second Afd.

• Jono made the vast majority of the page. I was on business in Singapore anyhow. Then he disappeared. By all accounts, he collapsed due to the stress of the second Afd which had been brought on in a week. When I got back from Singapore, I culd not believe the nature of the Afd debate and so I made a comment.

• Go on my talk page and you will see FeydHuxtable asking me if I had seen Jono. I have not and I have not heard from him. I sent emails to his family and I got one back from a relative saying that apparently his wife had banned him from ever returning. From what I see, he has kept his promise to her first. He has never made any further edit on Wikipedia, which is a shame because he actually contributed to a biochemistry page which was his "core". Wikipedia lost a very committed and passionate editor. Jono made the mistake of being too passionate.

• One of the reasons I was banned included the fact that I was Swedish. Another Swedish user called "Swedish Gold" was banned also for being Swedish. Swedis Gold and I know one another in ex-professional circles and are acquaintances. He is placed in the Swedish Government. There is another Swedish user, who made an edit (and his IP resolves to the far north of Sweden). And he was banned for being Swedish from what I can see.

• I also add that the second Afd, a user who voted to 'delete was perpetrated by a bogus user masquerading as a professor at Berkeley University. The user "Swedish Gold" called him out on that. And rightly so. That was how "wild" the second Afd became.

• The demise of Jono2013 generated angry comments, all of which were deleted by those against whom the assertions were made. I understand the editor FiddleFaddle did email "swedish gold" last summer. "Swedish Gold" told me but I have not seen those emails. I believe Swedish Gold was very "upset" at the way that anyone Swedish was banned. I was also told that FiddleFaddle had even written an essay on wikipedia, "inspired" by the whole debacle. You have to check with him.

• I suppose because the technology is Swedish therefore (I am guessing) open to the innuendo of some sort of "national bias".

• After several months, I decided to add certain aspects to give greater detail as to its history and recognition (because in the Afd "notability" had been raised). I had hoped that maybe from time to time Jono2013 would see that I was picking up where he had left off.

• When it became obvious the article needed improving over and beyond Jono's original work - because he did not have the technical knowledge, there were aspects on the page which he never tackled in his days. Hence as I said, I have written the sections on Pozzolanic concrete chemistry and added to the section on EMC Activation, with reference to publicly available documents and my knowledge of this rather "specialist" area of Chemistry which ANGRY users refers to as (alternatively) FAKE (he uses the word in caps multiple times) and "Rubber Ducky".

• I added those section in direct response to a user request for a deeper understanding of why EMCs "do what they do". This is a "two dimensional" consideration because one has to look first at the cement compound produced and then why that produces "better" concretes (and the last past can be explained only by reference to concrete chemistry). I also add that "concrete chemistry" is also an entirely separate academic discipline to "cement chemistry", which confirms the "two dimensional" nature of the considerations. I wrote the section on pozzolanic concrete chemistry before Chritsmas. I was uncomfortable about the tribochemistry section that would be needed so I sought guidance before xmas and hoped someone would give me guidance on the extents of Original Research.

• So, before Christmas, having written the section regarding pozzolanic concrete chemistry, I posted several messages on Wikipedia asking for guidance regarding original research before I wrote the section on Tribochemistry.

• I waited 2.5 months hoping for an answers. No one responded. So I wrote it last week. And then, "all hell" happened. Because it is clear the scientific basis for EMCs are very real --- and so the only way to then disparage the page is to attack that aspect. You look at ANGRY userr's posts. It is all about "fake science". Coincidence?

• As for me, I live in Stockholm, Sweden. And I am not passionate about keeping this article. I am however passionate about people making grave accusations either that I am "stupid", or that I am "lying" or that what I write is "fake science" (all of which ANGRY editor repeated several times over). I think I have a right to be "passionate" about that.

• So if you want to Afd the article, do so. I may add initial comments in a third Afd, but beyond that, I am not going to make the mistake of Jono2013, by getting acutely anxious about losing my work. But if the article is lost, I will probably go to Arbcom and take it there. Not because the article is lost, but because I have been accused and the science has been accused and I do care about that - and from what I see that aspects is being "lost". I will also state, that I asked for guidance on Original Research nobody assisted me despite waiting 2.5 months, and that by contrast, the EMC page has been put under the spotlight endlessly and the air poisoned beyond rational debate by a user whose motivations are at the very least "questionable", whereas the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. When it has been made clear that no editor connected to EMC has contributed and that Ronin and LTU never supported the page. I believe I will have "earned" that right if my worik is delelted when I have been accused of promoting "FAKE" science (in CAPS) and of being a "LIAR" (in caps) over and over and over again by a user who has never backed such serious assertions-up in any meaningful substantive manner.

• You cannot "cheat" science. Wikipedia can delete the page, but it cannot "cheat" science. It is real. 4.5 million cubic yards cast by 2010 for TXDOT demonstrates this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Because all the concrete poured is within specification. Unlike Geopolymer_cement, which maybe if the regulations are changed, might in many years (say, 10 to 15 years earliest) start production in any meaningful volumes (and even then, that is if one can afford the hazard, environmental and financial costs brought about by it requirements of copious supplies of 14M NaOH for its synthesis, by comparison)

213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean one of the reasons you and others "was banned included the fact that .... was Swedish"? Are you saying that because if similarity in geolocation along with other factors, it was suspected that you (and others) were sock or meatpuppets or had an undeclared COI (relating to your place of employeement not your country) and edited inappropriately? Or are you say you and the others were discriminated against because you were Swedish? If you're saying the later, I suspect many like me will find this unbelievable particularly since you provided no diffs. It basically destroys any credibility as well as ensures I'm not going to bother reading anything else you said in this long statement. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

:: Hi: I mentioned it because I recall reading on a talk page somewhere words that were "And if you see anyone else Swedish who has an interest in cement let me know" in the context of banning contributors to any debate. You have to excuse me but I do not locate comments that were made on someone's user pages in May of last year. I don't know how. But I recall it clearly because Swedish Gold called me and was absolutely furious. Then I read it myself. I want to say this is why I do not have a user account - because my IP address is record and in Stockholm. Jono2013 is British and live in England. I do not believe that I have ever edited anything substantive during the Afd debate - I simply made an honest mistake (I was a novice) of not declaring that (when I added my comment on the Afd) I had helped start the article right at the beginning, which as I said, was when I came back from Singapore and could not believe my eyes (so I made my comment on the Afd). Swedish Gold knows a lot of people including academics in Berkeley who are very respected (who also know Ronin and "supportive" of his work with Prof. Elfgren). So he got incensed when a person on the Afd started masquerading as a professor from Berkeley. Swedish Gold exposed the fraud. It is all at the end of the second Afd. And then he got banned despite his "services" to such respects. And then I was banned even though I was in Stockholm. Meanwhile Jono2013 had already "collapsed" never to return... and FiddleFaddle got inspired for an essay about how experts on Wikipedia can be treated. So something "good" came of it - yes? Maybe you read it. But you need to ask FiddleFaddle where it is because I cannot remember its title. I hope this helps 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

213.66.81.80, I suggest you focus on content rather than on user conduct. you have made a decent start to the article, but perhaps you should just step back, take a deep breath, maybe even a short WP:wikibreak, and come back, ready to calmly collaborate with other editors, to fix the issues the page does have. good pages for you to read are probably WP:DGAF and WP:DR. if you feel that someone is making personal attacks, it is better to warn them, and if the persist, take it here, rather than responding in kind. we're all (or mostly) adults here, so let's act like it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tack for that! I have taken 2.5 month break after waiting for assistance. But got none. I think there is a deeper issue here, and if you see my response to Nil Eine above, there are deeper issues which FiddleFaddle exposed. The fact is I have added very high standard chemistry sections on the page, and I get accused of fake science, lying, being stupid (IN CAPS) about 30 times over (by a single purpose account) and suddenly the debate is not about that, but about banning me. Which is why I think that the only way to resolve the deeper issue (of the way experts are treated) is something like Arbcom, and hence sensitive editors like FiddleFaddle and FeydHuxtable could contribute constructively. Because this cannot keep happening. I am now the second substantive writer being "driven off" this wikipedia agape ---- when in reality my expertise is much deeper than Jono2013s ever was. And why? Well from my view it feels simply because I refused to be bullied into responding to multiple abusive TLDRs? The record is clear. And surely we must all agree no one should have to put up with a week of extreme bullying only then to be told "let's delete all your work anyhow and while we are at it ban you". The focus should be how the heck was a bully allowed to pollute the talk page to such a degree and not only get away with it (despite a level 4 warning), but to such a degree that others not only believe that "editor's" BS, but also cause a change in the debate - so the focus is on me. Serious science, real science has been accused of being fake, me a liar and stupid, - and I am being threatened with censure despite it being clear I was dealing with (or trying to deal) with extremely hostile bullying. The attacks persistence and oddness is a feature I have raised several times - and it speaks for itself. Yet I see no one picking up on that. This is pure Arbcom territory, surely? Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

not yet, but can you link diffs of the attacks? that is the key. people don't want to have to dig through edit history to find stuff, you should provide evidence. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

actually, I see what you mean, and I am mildly surprised that he/she has not be blocked yet, however, drmies appears to have his eye on things over there, and he's usually pretty good about such things. just ignore that IP user. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there: I am very embarrassed to say I have no idea how to make "diff/edits". I can format an article really nicely (I learned how to make nice chemical equations and collapse the section), but (ahem) there are certain things I don't know how to do. Anyway, as you say, they speak for themselves. The user page User_talk:71.33.155.41 shows that Jim1138 issued the level 4. But that did not stop it. I hope this helps. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah, I was wondering about that. here's a good tutorial: WP:D&L. perhaps you can go, and work on some other articles for a while, you seem to have a good handle on how articles are written. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Snow Rise dropped me a line about the IP/Jono thing. This edit suggests they're not the same--or maybe that's why the edit was made. Who knows. I read over that talk page again, and the edit history of both the IP and the Jono account, and I think that maybe the simplest thing is to bar both IP editors (and Jono) from touching that article or its talk page again, to trim the article down to a stub, and to start afresh. Surely there's others besides those two editors who care for cement. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hi there, For the final time, I am NOT Jono2013 - and finally the penny has dropped. Jono did all his edits in England didn't he? I am in Stockholm SWEDEN - yes? This is why I do not have a named account...

  Also, CI am hoping you can read my comments above to Aunva? And now I have looked at the history from May of last year, can you also declare whether you acted in as part of the blocking me or removing all the edits of Swedish Gold so that no record of his defense of Jono2013 remains? Now I have looked at the history, your role should be clearly stated because then I am hoping you can tell me why, given you are good at blocking bullies, as Aunva says, you did nothing but allow me to be bullied for more than a week? This is not a debate about the page. Nor my conduct when I have done nothing wrong. As I said to Aunva, I want to know how the heck was a bully allowed to pollute the talk page to such a degree and not only get away with it (despite a level 4 warning), but to such a degree that others not only believe that "editor's" BS, but also cause a change in the debate - so the focus is on me.

  This said, if you do think me being 'persistently bullied is not important, then maybe you should say so. But I must say, I take this bullying that I had to endure very seriously and hope you do too. So I want this debate focused on that. Because I am the one who has had to suffer it. Thanks 213.66.81.80 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • That other editor has been warned. The mudslinging comes from both sides. That you're from Stockholm doesn't mean you can't have a named account, and at any rate the Jono thing is immaterial to my argument: that this awful article is better off without the two of you. My focus is on the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

    Drmies it's fairly common for a sockpuppet (i.e. someone intentionally abusing multiple accounts) to make comments in reply to the other account with the intention I guess as you implied, to make it seem like they're different people. So I don't think the post on Jono's talk page means much other that proving that this is either intentional abuse of multiple accounts or they are different people. I.E. That it can't be appropriate use of multiple accounts. But editing the same article or article talk page already rules out the later anyway.

    In reply to the IP, the comment you quoted does sound bad in isolation, but without context I can't really say for sure that it is bad. That's why I said I needed diffs. If you don't know how to provide them, you really should have asked before posting a long list of complaints backed up by zero evidence thats easy for someone to review. Besides that, if you don't want to go digging up the evidence, you really should consider whether it's appropriate to make the claim. The simple fact is a serious accusation unsupport by evidence is always going to make you look bad. At the very least you could have provided some context like you have now (paraphrasing what was said and where you think it was said) which would give people an idea of what you're referring to and where to look for it.

    Energetically modified cement apparently has a strong Swedish connection but it doesn't sound like the sort of thing that everyone in Sweden is going to know or care about or that mostly people in Sweden are going to know or care about. (In other words, it's not like we're talking about Västerås here.) So if likely sockpuppets (based on behavioural evidence) have shown up in the past all coming from Sweden, it's probably a fair call to investigate more closely (but probably not automatically block all contributions from) new contributors who show up and fit that profile in the future. I wouldn't say it any different for people from Australia or the Los Angeles area (both of which have a higher population than Sweden) in some similar dispute.

    As for your claims about Jono, I don't see how we can know where they come from. As an account, no CU is ever going to confirm or deny whether the evidence supports their claims, and definitely not link the to any IP due to our privacy policy. So all we can know about is what they claim.

    Interestingly, if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jono2013/Archive, it was suggested by a CU that Jono2013 is between possible to likely the same as Swedish Gold. We obviously don't know what the actually evidence is (and at this late stage, it's unlikely the evidence is even still available). But even presuming the user agent and other details are exactly the same, it seems unlikely a CU is going to conclude that they are 'possible bordering likely' if the IP details suggest a completely different geographical area, unless they also have a reason to think that the IP details may not give the person's actual geographical location, e.g. a proxy may have been used. This would suggest either the IP details can't be trusted or one of the people either Jono or Swedish Gold even presuming they aren't sockpuppets, wasn't telling the truth about where they came from.

    On the whole though, I don't really know or care who's a sockpuppet of who. However I do agree with others that the talk page of that article is a real mess. And it sounds like you care a lot about this article and the subject. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, given the history here it's probably not a good idea you get too heavily involved at this early stage. There are surely many people articles related to chemistry and material science but mostly unrelated to this article that you could edit. Once you have learnt more how edit and interact with others, perhaps you can return to editing the article in question. (If you have no interest in editing anything but the article or stuff highly related, this suggests a WP:SPA. While SPAs are not intrinsicly bad nor banned, they don't generally last long in articles with a history of problems and contentious behaviour.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, its useful that Drmies brought that diff up -- I had lost track of where it was to be found, but I had remembered the comment when I read the SPI. Note that the IP makes his introductory comment on the talk page on May 27. However, ten days earlier on May 17, in the midst of the SPI, his personal knowledge of Jono2013 is intimate enough for him to be the one informing us that Jono has "collapsed" from the stress of being harassed and has been barred from continuing editing on Wikipedia by his wife and that "We are all appalled at the constant harassment of Jono2013 and the EMC Page." And that's really just the least of the evidence; between the article's talk page, the AfDs, the SPI and talk pages of other users, I can't imagine many experienced editors reading even a smattering of the pair's posts could walk away with anything but the impression that they are the same person -- it's that cut an dry. If nothing else, the CU's finding that they geolocate to the same area shows that the IP's insistence that the operate from separate countries is more than likely to be false. I don't want to belabour this point too much, because action has been taken and we should try to move foreward, but given the editor's past ambivalence to oversight, I think it bears noting just how long and consistent his efforts to confuse process have been whenever he's called out for inappropriate behaviour. He has pattern, repeated ad nauseum (and again, immediately obvious to anyone reviewing the course of his involvement in this project), of responding to criticism (of him or his content) with disparaging and vitriolic comments (read his last comment in AfD from near a year ago and then compare it to his more recent behaviour on Talk:Energetically modified cement to see just how little he has learned to control his temper and not take disagreement about his edits personally) and then crying "harrasment" whenever this beahviour catches up with him, trumping up the the most asinine claims. Take his most recent claims that he has been labelled as having a "national bias" -- no one made any such claims anywhere at the locations he's suggested; he's misrepresenting the fact that other editors were on guard for additional IP's bearing the exact profile as two identities he had already assumed, as noted in the SPI. Whether this is a case of a victim complex actually causing him the believe this ludicrous non-sequitor or whether he is simply trying to confuse the discussion is really a rather moot point -- his behaviour is, regardless, highly disruptive and uncivil and it has to stop. There was a comment in his SPI by an editor suggesting that he should admit to his sockpuppetry (presumably before having the ban lifted); had that approach been followed, he would have one less trick to fall back on the confuse the issue of his long-running antipathy towards proper process. If we don't do better this time around, we're just going to be back here again, because nowhere in this discussion (or any that I've reviewed), has he ever admitted to the least particle of fault in his caustic interactions with others - he's always the victim. That approach is clearly not going away until it is abundantly clear to him that he can't keep that up forever as a means of avoiding consequences for his combative attitude towards other editors who are doing nothing more than applying routine process. Snow (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)yeah, I saw that, although, from what I can see, 213.66.81.80's contributions to the article itself have been constructive, albeit the refs mostly point to one research organization, but he DOES have other sources. he just needs to not let stuff get under his skin, and he should take a look at WP:MOS. he's not that much different from any other new editor, which is what he really is. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

'RESPONSE TO DRMIES

Excuse me....the "mudslinging" does NOT come from both sides. The record must not be distorted. I repeatedly said to ANGRY user I would not engage in abusive TLDRs, only then to get the same foul messages back - accusing me of LYING (in CAPS), of FAKE science (in CAPS), essentially being a fraud, being stupid for an entire week. It went on and on and on and on! And yes he was warned to level 4 in one step and I congratulate the admin who did this! But that was not you. I have been persistently bullied for a week - and you do nothing. YET the moment it comes to discuss this, you are promoting the idea that the page is deleted and that I am banned. And make a pejorative statement "awful article".

• As I said above, the EMC page has been put under the spotlight endlessly and the air poisoned beyond rational debate by an ANGRY user (he used that word in CAPS so many time) whose motivations are at the very least "questionable", bullied me to no end, whereas the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. When it has been made clear that no editor connected to EMC has contributed and that Ronin and LTU never supported the page.

• The reason why Snow has made his comments is because of the SPI that was imposed on me for supposed being a sockpuppet of Jono2013. There is not even a record of it on my page. In fact, at the time it was done in such a way that I could not even appeal it. And NOW you say --finally-- I am NOT a "sockpuppet" of Jono2013.

• I don't have a named account to prove I am in SWEDEN. But when I tried to report ANGRY user here? After finally thinking I understood how to do it, and typing my complaint, I hit the save page button, to then be informed that I had to have a NAMED account. Do you see how helpless I have been?

Drmies: I believe this summaries your posture regarding me being bullied: I was banned last year for 3 months with no prospect of appeal, for being Swedish, only now for it finally to be concede I am not a scokpuppet of Jono2013 who was British all along. My IP address was a visible then as it is now. Then when I am bullied persistently for a week, because of defending bogus accusations of FAKE science (in CAPs) time and time and time again, despite that fact no warning was ever issued to me over last weeks dreadful occurrences, whereas the ANGRY user got an immediate "level 4", you now suggest I am BANNED from editing the page. Is that about right? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

chill out, like I said, just forget about that IP user, and let others deal with it. if someone told you that you needed a registered account to report to AN/I, AFAIK, they are wrong. in fact, even when this page gets semiprotected, there is an alternate page, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed_posts. i suggest, that you be the better person, and let drmies and other editors deal with it. maybe you need to step back, and take a breather, do something else for a couple hours, and come back calmly. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Aunva for your kind post. I only want to make sure the record is preserved because I was the one who was bullied. I have been through the most horrible week imaginable and I cannot have it implied that I accept that I was mudslinging. Time and again I said I would not respond to TLDRS. Time and again bogus accusations were made. Every time I picked one of them, I got gobbledygook back and even more accusations. It was just relentless.

For example, the said ANGRY user made the assertion not that everything I had written was refutable, but that he demonstrably refuted it (there is an enormous distinction in forensic terms). To say one has "refuted" serious and credible science (let alone proven science), you must be able to demonstrate that. Not by endless gobbledygook, but by solid referenced articles. What this person has done is make to very serious allegations without ever backing it up, bullied me no end and so that there is no "insult to injury" I do not want this debate "morphed" into something that makes me look equally the aggressor.

I hope you see these words not as someone who is angry, but someone who is very concerned that a week of extremely vile and persistent bullying is not mis-categorized, so that the focus is shifted.

Thank you again for your kind words Auvna. I believe that any admin can show that Jono2013 only edited in England, and the idea that three old farts like me, Jono2013 and Swedish Gold using fancy technology to "cloak IPs" (per Nil Einne) when half the time I'm just trying to make sure my glasses dont fall off my nose as I type, is seen for what it is. I struggle with a lot of this but try my best. Not all of us were born with laptops dangling from the Christmas tree you know.... I remember when computers had punch cards :)

Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

well, it's not hard to figure out an ip address's ISP, and proxies are usually on commercial ISP's. keep in mind, we don't know who you actually are, this is the internet after all. all we know for sure is what you do here. I just try to Assume Good Faith, unless the editor in question demonstrates bad-faith actions. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that confirms how wet behind thums I am as I thought an IP in wikipedia stood for "internet protocol". It goes to show I don't know what an "IP" stands for on Wikipedia, I just see a lot people using it here and assumed it meant "internet protocol". Again, your greater knowledge causes my red ears... and yes, if by your comment, you mean the quality of my substantive edits, that much is I hope clear. I have always been very precise in my writing substantives which is why my editing on the page is so like a snail. But i do not assert unless there is a reference. The section I wrote last week on tribochemisrty was difficult because it is very heuristic and, as such, based on observable effects rather than provable causes. But I stand by my edits because the SINTEF report I referenced is clear. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

well, there is such a thing as being too detailed, or not having a balance of detail. you ned to remember that we're writing for the general public, not as much experts in the associated fields. and yeah, we refer to editors without a registered account as "IP editors" or IP's. you'll get the hang of things, even I am still learning new things, and I think the same goes for even jimbo, and he founded this place. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

this is a very interesting point. Wikipedia has very detailed articles in science which is way beyond "general public" level. Look at some of the wonderful pages on maths, chemistry, etc. So this has what has always puzzled me. Because it is clear, Wikipedia has a very serious side.

So this is what I tried to do: balance the need to show that the article is writing by someone who knows his sciences, and also try to contextualize the information imparted. The difficulty with "contextualization" is that it can be seen a "promotional" in my view. Because if I say 4.5 million cubic yards of concrete, well I would not expect you to know what that means. But if I said to you that is more than the entire Hoover dam plus also of its associated slipways and access roads etc., you then have a "mind's eye" contextualization - yes? So you learn two facts - one that 4.5 million cu.yds are cast in TXDOT projects and also that the hoover dam etc was (in your minds eye) somewhere in that region of volume. Now, that simple contextualization can then being interpreted as "promotional" for those editing Wikipedia who are "hyper sensitive" to this aspect. But I don't see it that way, rather I think contextualization aids the teaching process which is what a good encyclopedia should do. In other words, it should explain and educate and not just "state". 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme and BLP violations

User:Atsme appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to defaming users and subjects she or he disagrees with and promoting those with which he does agree, specifically on the subject of Islam. He or she has repeatedly posted BLP violations and conspiracy theories, the latter exemplified by his or her recent claim to have filed for mediation on the grounds of TAGTEAMING (the evidence for this being that more than one user disagrees with him or her, so clearly it's a TAGTEAM). I warned him/her about this behavior, but the user waved it off and today posted another such BLP violation with regard to the alleged affiliations of a living person, which I will not repeat the substance of here because, you know, BLP. [61] A block seems like the only way to get this user to take policy seriously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she is a SPA. I think that she really just doesn't understand policy. While she has ignored you I think she is expcting more of a hierarchical structure. Pretty much she exibits the behavoir of new users. Before any kind of a topic ban I'd really like to see an univolved party just peek in. Maybe this situation can be fixed without penalty. And even if it is address with penalty an attempt to amek it very clear why should be made.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps mentorship might aid, if she truly does not know policy and doesn't really know that she's going against it as you say. KonveyorBelt 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if she doesn't understand policy she needs to be willing to defer to people who do. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Again I could be absolutely wrong. But I think she is expecting some type of hierarchical structure here. Maybe she might defer to someone uninvolved. They can try to help address her concerns in a way she can understand. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. But I think if you topic ban her then that will do nothing. I'm not sure she will really understand why she got banned. That's an invitation to do the same thing elsewhere.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

She's irritating but she's not disruptive. She's trying hard after her manner. I, for one, hope that that's the worst that can be said of me. I don't see any grounds for sanctions against her and I don't see that it'd help anything either. She's not a SPA, she's just interested in Islamic extremism right now. A couple years ago she was interested in fish and had the same kind of issues. No harm, no foul, says I.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You just made some pretty bold accusations against me, Roscelese. FYI - I'm a she. About your warning - I did respond to you, and asked what you were talking about, and I also asked who you were. Here is the page for all to see.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&oldid=598929217 You never responded, so I removed it from my Talk page. I have not posted any BLP violations. What you're doing now is making groundless allegations against me, and I happen to be a living person. I probably should have brought your warning to ANI the minute I received it, but I didn't want to bother admins with something so petty. I have not once defamed any users, or subjects, or repeatedly posted conspiracy theories. As for WP:TAGTEAM, don't you think maybe the prior warning you posted on my Talk page and then ignored my questions, and now your groundless accusations here might explain some of my concerns? Are you doing this to me because I opposed the Islamophobia template on IPT, and you support it? I've had little to no prior dealings with you, yet here you are making all these groundless accusations against me. Unbelievable. You aren't even one of the editors I've worked with, so why are you even involving yourself with me? The editors I've worked with, and consider my mentors are User:SerialJoepsycho and User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. They've been pretty demanding of my edits, and it sometimes felt like they were teaming up on me, but we always managed to work through it. They've taught me a lot, and I admire what they've done as editors, so don't think for one minute I don't appreciate their patience and understanding. I can even understand why Alf would think I'm irritating, and I'm sure he can understand why I might get that way at times. Serialjoepsycho has also been very patient, understanding, and helpful. He even gave me advice on how to file for mediation, and even arbitration. Now that's pretty special in my book. I don't think I filed for mediation properly, but it doesn't matter. We're working through the article, and they've both been quite helpful, although still very demanding. I have no ill-will toward anyone, and I am certainly not a SPA, and I would never intentionally violate WP policy, so please stop trying to get me blocked because of groundless allegations. Shame on you. Atsme ☯ talk 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhhhh this "you are violating BLP by disagreeing with my editing and you're lucky I didn't report you for warning me" is not the sort of thing we hear from a constructive user. I hope the adoption goes well, but like I said, you can only claim ignorance for so long. You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: Perhaps this can just be attributed to a miscommunication. However it would be a stretch to call this completely groundless. There is a question of your behavoir. Consider not being offended about that for a moment. I think me and @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: feel you are really trying here and putting forth alot of effort. I don't wish to put words in her mouth but I think @Roscelese: is kind of just looking for that effort. I'm not your mentor. Maybe Alf wouldn't mind that but you should talk to him first. If not however I do have to suggest that you consider @Konveyor Belt:s suggestion in that you do seek mentorship. Unless I'm mistaken you can find out more here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:Thank you. I just visited the Adopt-a-user/ page, and requested adoption. Atsme ☯ talk 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Another bold statement from Roscelese: You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. Hopefully, an admin can explain what I have done to deserve such language, and treatment? Will someone please provide a link to the purported "BLP violation"? My understanding of BLP is that if a statement is true, and properly sourced it can be included. Do indictments and a plea of guilty that is directly related to the quote not fall under that category? Is it not clear right here on ANI that Roscelese is threatening me? My behavior may be "persistent in learning" which some may classify as "irritable", but it has never been to the degree that I've used profanity in a threat to anyone, and yet I am the one under the looking glass being threatened now. How could an editor who is consistently being attacked and disrupted in such a way not be concerned? Atsme ☯ talk 15:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's linked in the post and I warned you about similar comments earlier. Your comment about indictments is meaningless. ANI process is not a "threat," and you need to stop letting your paranoia overcome whatever willingness to edit collaboratively you might ever have had. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese failed to present a single diff in support of her accusations that Atsme is engaging in BLP violations. I've seen Atsme in dispute before and there were no cases of BLP violations visible. So I'd suggest Roscelese retracts her accusation or backs it up. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I provided a diff in my original post. Either you didn't read it carefully, or you are unaware that the BLP policy applies to all namespaces - you can't make unsupported controversial claims about living people in talk space, user space, or anywhere. Now you know! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, the information in the diff link is not specific to your claim that I violated BLP policy. Are you referring to the quote from CAP, or are you referring to my question to you when you called Front Page Magazine a "fringe source"? There was no comment from you anywhere during that discussion that I violated BLP policy. Your comment was about NPOV. If I violated BLP, why did you not say something right then and there, and why are you being so evasive now? We don't know what you're referencing, and your blanket answer about BLP policy doesn't point out any violation specifically by me. Please be more specific. When you came to the ANI with a complaint about me to the point that you used profanity in a threatening manner, and flat out accused me of a BLP violation, and being a SPA, you should be able to back up your statements with direct links and factual information. You have failed to do that at this point. I think it is important in a claim such as this one that you be more specific about the charges you've brought against me. Atsme ☯ talk 21:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: The BLP violation is when you claimed that the report was written by people with ties to an organization considered by multiple governments to be a terrorist organization. That's a pretty serious allegation to make when not backed up by a reliable source, which is what our BLP policy does not allow you to do. -- Atama頭 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama:, thank you for the information. The source I used is ranked in the top 10 of conservative magazines, which is a higher ranked source than the local newspaper that was used as a secondary source for the CAP report. If you'll look at the diff link, there is no mention of a BLP violation, only NPOV. I am inclined to believe there was no mention of a BLP violation at the time because there was no BLP violation. Had it been mentioned to me beforehand, I could have provided additional reliable sources. Atsme ☯ talk 23:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the BLP violation is Atsme saying that the CAP folks who wrote Fear Inc are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Nation was quite dismissive of this kind of reaction, calling it "near-cartoonish". If Atsme wants to reduce the scholarship of Fear Inc she will have to find some other method. Defaming the CAP people is not the way forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Willful ignorance of the notability of Bruce E. Johansen, etc.

Among the issues here are possible attempted bullying, possible disruptive editing, including "tag bombing", refusal to use article talk pages, deletion of comments and images, et cetera. The situation apparently started at the Paul Chaat Smith article, and prompted the other editor, User:randykitty, to seek out all the articles which I created during the past year and repeatedly place numerous vague maintenance tags on them. The quickness with which he reverts my edits leads me to believe that he has my "user contributions" page on his watch list. By his investing large amounts of time into edit-warring, he has effectively shut down any contribution on my part. The first issue is the question of the notability of Bruce E. Johansen. Repeated taggings (Edits #18, #19, #22, #26, & #36) have been made without even a word on the talk page of the article. Assertion of notability was provided through comments in the article source (Edits #21, #23, & #34). User:randykitty has repeatedly removed this assertion of notability from the article source when replacing his tags, which indicates that he has definitely read it, and is either unable or unwilling to deal with the facts. The record clearly shows that this ignorance of the notability of Professor Johansen is quite intentional, much like all the other complaints that he has made. I was even nice enough to try to attempt a compromise in which the tags would be placed at the bottom of the article in order to allow work on the article to proceed, but he rejected that arrangement. I consider that my actions are proper in deleting the maintenance tags on the basis of this statment found in the wikipedia documentation:

Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag.

—  Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems

Now I am being threatened with being blocked from editing, which would seem to fit the description of a "no-edit order" found at Wikipedia:WikiBullying. See threats at User talk:E.N.Stanway.

Also in dispute are images which User:randykitty arranged to have deleted from the system after vague banners were placed at User talk:E.N.Stanway. I consider that this is yet another instance of intentional harassment. Further discussion of this issue can be found at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen and User talk:randykitty.

Despite a complete lack of discussion on the article talk pages, User:randykitty has repeatedly placed banners on my editor's talk page, again without explanation. Now I myself have been accused of "vandalism" and "disruptive editing". Threats of being blocked include two "final warnings" on my user talk page an one "final warning" in an edit log. More details about the issues may be found at Talk:Bruce_E._Johansen, User_talk:E.N.Stanway and User talk:randykitty. There are many other issues of dispute, but this should suffice to start the discussion. E.N.Stanway (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Any editors who feel like jumping in here are cordially invited to check E.N.Stanway's talk page, the edit histories of the articles he is referring to, the diffs that he shows, and the huge wall of text that I found on my talk page just now. Please ping me if any further clarifications are needed. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The tags at Donald A. Grinde, Jr., Bruce E. Johansen & The Great Sioux Nation are clearly justified and the issues are clearly linked to policy/guideline pages that explain the problems. Continued reverting and casting aspersions/personal attacks by E.N.Stanway appears to be disruptive. regards 94.195.46.224 (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• At first glance, the tags on the article do appear justified. I'm not sure what E.N.Stanway is doing trying to both remove them OR move them to the bottom and calling them "graffiti" - there are clearly wholesale concerns about the article that need to be addressed. We do not move maintenance tags to the bottom of the page, and continually doing that is inappropriate. I also cannot fathom the use of inline comments - the discussion and proof of supposed notability takes place on the article talkpage, and NOT by saying "because I said so" and embedding it in the article. Is there some type of WP:COI in play? There seems to be bull-in-a-china-shop type editing to this page, and full-scale declining to actually discuss anything - they seem quite intending to just lay blame rather than learn Wikipedia's policies, style, and requirements. The "banners' (aka warnings) appear quite valid. I'm concerned that newishness is causing major WP:IDHT and WP:OWN issues here, and it's become quite disruptive DP 11:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

He posted to Randykitty attacking him thus: "the notion that you have promoted that maintenance tags are "necessary" is another of your frauds and lies." and calls his username " more than a little creepy."[62](where he also says he wants discussion of his possible copyvio images to take place not on his talk page but at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen The response to his complaints about his images being deleted is at User talk:TLSuda - if he recreates them he should certainly be blocked. He thinks that maintenance tags aren't needed on one-line BLPs[63] [64] I think the continued insistence on removing maintenance tags from one line articles is blockworthy but am willing to wait to see if he continues to remove them. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope that the image side of this issue will be resolved. I think that he was owed an explanation, but I also think he should have followed the instructions on the template that was placed on the images prior to deletion. Had there been a note contesting the deletion, I would've given an explanation on his talk page. We can see how he responds. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: please note that when I nominated those files for deletion for a second time, I posted a warning template and added a manual comment to that, trying to point the editor to a place where he could get help with this issue. I agree that that is perhaps not the most visible thing and will make such notices clearer in the future. Also, I have used quite long edit summaries trying to explaining the issues to E.N.Stanway. This is a user with several hundreds of edits over more than a year, so I did not consider them a newbie (where I most probably would have explained issues in much more detail). Frankly, I must admit that I also was a bit put off by the hostile attitude of this editor. I didn't read the long rant on my talk page, but see that Dougweller did: for non-US English speakers, my username is explained on my user page. At the time I chose it, our cat had just died and I never intended any carnal allusions... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not faulting you for not reaching out; I could have when I deleted them the first time, or again the second time. My hope is that now he has come to my talkpage he has gotten the information he needed to understand the situation with the images. TLSuda (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought this was a newbie, befuddled by templated warnings. But he's been around for over a year, and although he's now blanked them he had received several patient explanations on his talk page about various issues he's been having here since March 2012. [65]. I collapsed his lengthy comment at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen because it inappropriately concentrated largely on personally attacking another editor and his motives. When other editors point out a problem with an article, and Bruce E. Johansen definitely had one, the appropriate response by its creator is to fix it or leave the tags to alert someone else to fix it instead of immediately opening hostilities and firing away with both barrels. I added sufficient refs to it to establish notability in literally half the time E.N.Stanway spent on edit-warring and writing multiple lengthy diatribes and personal attacks on other editors. Having said that, when maintenance tags are removed, the person restoring them ought to explain why they have on the talk page, if nothing else to retain the moral high ground. I hope E.N.Stanway takes the various comments here and on his talk page on board. Otherwise, he is apt to have a short career here.Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruptive talk page editing by User:Lampstand49

The following is copied from the 3RR noticeboard. It was archived before any action or discussion by an Admin. Following find additional diffs to support disruptive talk page editing.

User:Lampstand49 reported by User:Gaba p (Result: )

Page

Talk:Ken Ham (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lampstand49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
   2. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
   2. 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
3. 12:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
4. 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600295976 by Gaba p (talk)"
   2. 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
6. 12:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
7. 12:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ken Ham. (TW)"

added previous warnings-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

1. 1. [66]
   2. [67]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* It is a fact that the Age of the Earth is not 6000 years old */ q"

Comments:

Editor has posted two walls of text to the article's talk page rambling about creationism and how the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Both comments were collapsed several times by a number of editors to which he proceeded to un-collapse. He was warned to stop un-collapsing but refuses to stop. Gaba ^(talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing of talk pages

diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. I think this shows a continued pattern of disruptive editing. I apologize for reposting from another noticeboard particularly if this is not in keeping with PAG (post to my talk page with suggestions for handling this better if needed). This editor continues to soapbox and is impeding progress through reasonable consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I will say that as an involved party it might help if an administrator officially notified Lampstand49 about discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience topics and urged them to discontinue their relentless wall-o-text attempts to whitewash the fringe claims being made and IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior of repetitions of the same content when the consensus has recently been repeatedly made against their preferred version. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Gregory445

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

---

Someone block this account and quick. See this and their wonderful userpage. I'm not going to waste my time telling them of this discussion, per WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• User:Gregory445 has been blocked (not by me). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've changed visibility of the edit summary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Rampant sock 23.240.42.216

While I think I'd be entitled to squash this one myself, it would be better if someone less involved in the area does it. Its edits consist entirely of reverts with offensive edit summaries. The edit summaries indicate a well-known large sock family, but my memory isn't working properly today. Zero^talk 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked and removed talk page vandalism, needs everything rolled back though. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Found out how to do it, but I need to install a script and Wikipedia isn't allowing me to create User:Dougweller/common.js. The edit field flashes and vanishes, leaving no field to edit in. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits reverted but not by me. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you ordinarily use WikEd, it's been acting up; try disabling it to create your .js page. All the best, Miniapolis 21:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC to allow role accounts

An RfC regarding allowing role accounts Gigs (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection review - Political status of Crimea

I'm asking for review of my actions at Political status of Crimea as they come close to, if not actually, violate WP:PREFER. This is a continuation of the saga reported at WP:ANI#Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country and elsewhere. I protected Republic of Crimea (country) yesterday due to the edit war going on there as a result of Dennis's close. Part of that edit war included User:Incnis Mrsi restoring the article, changing the scope a bit and then moving it to a new title. This was then all reverted by others. As I had protected the article Incnis Mrsi then simply did a copy and paste move of the old article to Political status of Crimea. I reverted this and protected that page as it seems an end around our processes and a backdoor way to ignore Dennis's close that may escape all attention. Once my protection has worn off they simply reverted me. I think my actions are justified in the circumstances but given the unusual circumstances I invite review. More admin eyes at this wouldn't go amiss anyway. Dpmuk (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Very proper actions on your part, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone should probably merge this discussion with the one immediately below but it's obviously not my place to do so. Dpmuk (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear sysops!

In short, you can see a content disruption and abuse of privileges by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who used it, namely WP:page protection, to degrade Wikipedia, specifically to obstruct a new article creation and push politically biased redirects (although probably without an explicit intent). Henceforth I ask for urgent intervention. The conflict shares its beginning with the scandal around “Republic of Crimea (country)”, but after Dpmuk’s actions it became a separate case. The relevant part of story is as following:

1. Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) redirected Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Republic of Crimea.
2. Users Tibet2014 (talk · contribs) and XavierGreen (talk · contribs) reverted Dennis Brown’s action and his supporters.
3. I entered into edit war as the third side, by moving the article to Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), rewriting it to match the new scope.
4. RGloucester (talk · contribs) argued that my page move is not backed by a consensus, but explicitly clarified that sees nothing wrong in creation of the “Political status of Crimea” article.
5. RGloucester reverted my page move, so, Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) became a redirect as a standard page move side effect.
6. Dpmuk protected “Republic of Crimea (country)”, citing edit warring (I don’t disprove the reason of this single action, of course).
7. When I came back, the original article was protected. The only thing I can do was overwriting an (inadvertently created) redirect at “Political status of Crimea” with a relevant article. Hence a new article, with a new page_id, was created. It had noticeable chunks of recently created content, that wasn’t ever obstructed by editors, and indeed implicitly approved by RGloucester.
8. Soon at WP:Administrators' noticeboard, No such user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) expressed certain concerns about spawning of articles citing various multiletter acronyms. One can easily check that nine such articles already existed, and if the tenth is not sufficiently good, then it is so because started to be built only recently.
9. Dpmuk overwrote “my” article with another redirect to Republic of Crimea, a Russia’s federal subject, apparently prompted by No_such_user and trying to mimic Dennis Brown, but without understanding the situation. This redirect might deserve WP:Redirect#DELETE under points 2 and possibly 5, but in any case, it is grossly confusing and this edit certainly would be branded as a politically motivated WP:vandalism were effected by an IP or a newbie.
10. Dpmuk protected the page (a new article a minute before that) with a nonsensical explanation To match protection on Republic of Crimea (country), then dodged my attempt to discuss the matter and continued to obstruct the new article.

I do not deny that acted as a minor participant in the known edit war, in “Republic of Crimea (country)”, but Dpmuk’s actions on “Political status of Crimea” were purely disruptive and grossly incompetent since, before Dpmuk, there never was any war (I repeat: RGloucester stated that doesn’t object against a new article). A person who will resolve the problem on his/her own responsibility, without deliberations and protractions, will earn my respect, and possibly one of several reasonable users too. Independently, I ask somebody of smart (and sufficiently courageous) sysops to watch both the article and my user_talk, to deter possible further Dpmuk’s disruptions.

The offending person is notified both of the abuse (2 hours ago) and this discussion. The title Political status of Crimea, a hot topic, as well as its aliases recently created by me, namely Crimea question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Crimean question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), now point to another article in a manner suggesting that Wikipedia unilaterally supports the annexation.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Only 1 person tried to do things unilaterally, and now they're here because they didn't get their way. ES&L 18:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• What I see from you is edit-warring followed by a failure to even attempt a discussion (saying "I give you exactly two hours to correct your mistake before appealing to the community" doesn't count). Then you bring it to the drama board, with an accusatory thread title (which is generally frowned upon). This doesn't reflect well on you. -- Atama頭 19:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Incnis Mrsi might be so-and-such bad, but the incompetence is an incompetence, and the abuse in an abuse. Dpmuk saw a content fork? Perhaps. What a competent admin should do in this situation? I’ll answer:

1. Check whether an obvious fix is possible. In this case it wasn’t, because Dennis Brown’s “closure” was under a heavy criticism, if only because the discussion was interrupted prematurely.
2. Identify whether the internal copyright was infringed. I hint: it wasn’t.
3. Identify whether less obvious fixes are possible. Yes, they were: merging to 2014 Crimean crisis, for example, because all this stuff originated from there. Or a merger with accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation.
4. Try to discuss these less obvious fixes. You can easily check whether Dpmuk, or something else, attempted something of that sort.

Instead, we see sysops that do nothing but (unsuccessfully) try to mimic senior admins such as Dennis Brown (this is similar to that I saw in ru.wikipedia; you can ask user:Ymblanter about that as he saw it too and even took part for some time in his previous life), sysops that defend arbitrary redirects, “closures”, and protections because they are committed by other sysops, and no one of them, who are present here, did anything to fix an obvious wrongdoing in an acceptable way during several hours, preferring to babble about accusatory titles, unilateral actions, and so. I detest such conduct and do not attempt to earn a respect of most of this people. Yes, I “acted unilaterally” and didn’t evade responsibility for it, unlike most of you who ever hides behind someone’s back. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown is a senior administrator? Is there a SRfA for that? I've heard of Chief Administrator, that being Courcelles, but neither Chief Administrator nor Senior Administrator exists. And if there were one, well Dennis Brown is still quite an administrator novice having not even reached 2 years on the job yet. Dennis isn't respected for being a "Senior Administrator", he's respected for making respectable decisions and acting in a respectable manner. There is no reason not to mimic Dennis. He's very often cited as containing an element that is sorely needed in most administrators. If Dpmuk, who has seniority over Dennis, wanted to mimic Dennis, it's not because he's a senior admin. It's probably because Dpmuk sees some merit there. So please, save your logically fallible and demonstrably untrue accusations to yourself.--v/r - TP 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been an admin since 2009 and I still don't consider myself a "senior" anything. -- Atama頭 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Instead, we see sysops that do nothing but (unsuccessfully) try to mimic senior admins... sysops that defend arbitrary redirects, “closures”, and protections because they are committed by other sysops, and no one of them, who are present here, did anything to fix an obvious wrongdoing..."

You might have a legitimate case, Incnis Mrsi, but you do realize that you are coming to the Administrators' noticeboard and making broad generalization about how ineffectual and cowardly you think admins are. This finger pointing will not get you the result you are looking for. I'd adjust my approach because you are insulting the people you are asking to help you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In Incnis Mrsi's defense, this really is the best place to bring this matter. We don't have a noticeboard specifically for reporting administrator misconduct. Your advice about not insulting administrators is good, though I try not to take such comments too personally (even though I'm surely included personally in this particular insult). Incnis Mrsi is clearly upset and I view everything they're saying with that in mind. However, having said all that, it looks like this is ending up as a rant and won't lead to anything productive. Incnis Mrsi got off on the wrong foot to begin with by threatening an administrator if their demands were not met (which was somewhat circumvented by the admin asking on this noticeboard for a review of the protection) instead of discussing the issue civilly as they should have. This is clear battleground behavior and Incnis Mrsi is going to need to take it down a notch if they want to be taken seriously. -- Atama頭 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, Atama, I was trying to be helpful! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I've never seen you not trying to be helpful. :) -- Atama頭 03:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I’m not especially upset. This community is rotten: several years ago a guy making his edit war with the help of page protection feature would certainly be ostracised, even having a legitimate pretext for his actions. Now the guy who put a bunch of rubbish to “… summary” fields, pushed his web interface several times, and eventually protected the page indefinitely, in an apparent attempt to win the favour of Dennis Brown, is tolerable. This guy already demonstrated an outrageous misunderstanding of wiki when implied that I have to ask for a community consensus to reuse certain Wikipedia content in a new article. You, gregarious beings, read it because you accustomed to hide behind each other and nobody is willing to intervene in conflicts of such kind on his/her own responsibility. Wikipedia shall cleanse itself of it, or lose. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we arn't hiding behind anything. We don't like being bullied by your temper. You came here making wild accusations without an ounce of credibility to them, demanded blood, and then proceeded to make wilder accusations about all of us. It's your behavior that has tuned us out to your cry for help. You are responsible for the response you're getting. Had you come here with a calm head and laid out just the facts without any additional commentary or drama, then we might have given it a careful review. Similarly, had you approached Dpmuk without the threats, he may have given you a polite response or considered another solution. Your anger, threats, and accusations are the root of all of this.--v/r - TP 17:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, only one person tried to do things unilaterally: the admin. He cannot block a page simply because an editor dissents. The editor can in his own right create a completely new article if he wishes so. Per WP:FIVEPILLARS he doesn't need to ask permission or seek consensus when creating a new article (see also WP:BEBOLD). I, too, agree with @Incnis Mrsi that this article has all the merits to be a standalone article. Do I have to ask permission to create Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol? No I don't. WP:FIVEPILLARS and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH gives me the right to do that. But this admin went in and blocked the guy that had a differing point of view by unilaterally blocking the article indefinitely without any basis. That seems extremely harsh for a page with only 8 edits of which 3 were performed by the admin himself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I guess that Wikipedia should have been invited at today's G7 meeting on Crimea then. Count Iblis (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• No one in Amsterdam wants to see a bunch of geeky slobs fouling up the city. Come on, Count. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Under what basis did you protect this indefinitely? He only reverted it twice so he did not violate WP:3RR. Furthermore, I just reviewed the page history and I only see one edit war that involves you as an admin and another editor. Since when can administrators silence editors that dissent? I don't see your action as justified:

1. first because the edit war only included two people,
2. second because you were one of those two persons,
3. third because there were no violations of WP:3RR, and
4. fourth because there are other venues (such as WP:AN/EW and WP:RFPP) but you chose to unilaterally block the page indefinitely.

Even worse, you opened a request at ANI and I'm now being told that since this discussion is ongoing here at ANI that I can't request the page to be unprotected because of this. You are an admin. You must use the tools you were given with extreme care. I think you erred this time.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support actions by Dpmuk and Dennis Brown. Editors who want to urgently tell the world the true facts should use some other website because articles follow due process. Protecting a page indefinitely (meaning until the fire is put out) is doing the edit warriors a favor because the alternative would be blocking the editors who are trying to workaround the standard procedures. The above claims of "involved" are mistaken. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Your assessment is incorrect. Per WP:EDIT, one of our core policies, "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide the better it is." Then, a little bit further down, "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles." Furthermore, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, another policy, Wikipedia does not follow "due process" as you attempt to assert. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• And WP:CONSENSUS trumps all of that, which defeats your entire argument, and works against what Incnis Mrsi was trying to do. -- Atama頭 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please show me where is there consensus to not create this article and to redirect it to Republic of Crimea. There is none. Understand now? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Replies to some of the points above.

• The protection was indefinite not infinite. I fully expect for the protection to be lifted be either myself or another admin once there is agreement on the way forward.
• Anyone claiming there wasn't an edit war, or that the only edit was involved me and was at Political status of Crimea should take a look at the history of Republic of Crimea (country). It's pretty clear that Incnis Mrsi's actions at Political status of Crimea are a continuation of that. Indeed they admit that with the comment "(must go in the same edit history as Special:PermanentLink/600940464, but I currently unable to implement it because of talk:Republic of Crimea (country) #Full protection" where they admit they'd do the already reverted move again if they could. The fact that they then did it by the back door should not allow the action to escape scrutiny and this is what I acted to stop.
• As I said when bringing this issue here I was aware that my actions could possibly be seen as being against WP:PROTECT. When I did the first short protection I didn't ask for review because it didn't seem worth it for such a short protection. When I did the longer protection I asked for independent review to confirm my actions were reasonable as I accept they could appear to be against our policies - although I believed they were not.
• I am aware that you don't normally have to get permission to create a new article but here there was a "consensus" that there shouldn't be such an article and in those circumstances we do generally require a new consensus before creation. I could also point you at WP:BRD. You tried boldly creating a new article by moving and re-purposing the old one. This was reverted. At this point it would have been normal practice to discuss rather than attempt to do it again by the back door.
• Anyone that thinks I'm doing this to gain favour with Dennis Brown is very much mistaken. I saw an edit war, I acted to stop it. I saw an attempt to, what would be seen by many editors, continue that edit war by the back door so stopped that.
• As it happens it appears obvious to me that Dennis's "solution" is unlikely to be the long term solution. However at the moment it's the only thing we have so that's what we go with and the stability it brings about is a good thing. I'd urge all editors involved to continue the discussion and, possibly, come up with a new consensus. At that point articles may well be unprotected but it seems clear to me that any unprotection before that point is just going to result in edit warring.

—Dpmuk (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is no consensus that prevents the subject of this article from being created. NONE. There is no consensus to make the subject of this article a redirect to Republic of Crimea either. I hereby formally request that you show us this supposed consensus that you refer to. Whatever the user did is irrelevant 'cuz this is an entirely new subject that can be developed to become something intrinsically and fundamentally different than all other articles. You have been shown precedents for this. Want a better solution? Unprotect it and move it to Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol and let us develop it the same way that we have developed Political status of Puerto Rico and all others. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest developing it in your user space, in the draft namespace, or somewhere. This will enable editors to see if it significantly different to what was at Republic of Crimea (country) and / or to see if there is a consnesus for such an article to exist. Seeing the comments in the merge discussion I do wonder whether such an article may be the best way forward but personally I'd like to see consensus for it before unprotecting and it would probably be easiest to get a consensus if people can see a draft version. At the moment I strongly suspect that unprotecting will only result in more edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me explain myself so that you can understand my point of view: when that article was created it was about the independent country. But we already have that covered at International recognition of the Republic of Crimea. However, since the article was protected, I have not been able to evolve the article to its natural form: an article about the political status of the Republic of Crimea as a federal subject and the city of Sevastopol as a federal city. See where I'm going now? Unfortunately, due to your protection, I'm inhibited from creating such article because if I do so other admins will say I'm trying to violate consensus, or whatever. So, what I'm asking you is to unlock it and let me perform these new changes which would make the article unique. I believe that my solution is reasonable and will let us move on and create an encyclopedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Dpmuk: here it is: User:Ahnoneemoos/sandbox. I think this is a reasonable solution. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think the wisest thing to do would be for an administrator to delete the redirect at Political status of Crimea, and allow for a new article on the subject to be developed independently, and subject to consensus-based discussion and review by other editors. I would advise against the title [[Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol", as that would imply that Sevastopol is not in Crimea. Sevastopol is in Crimea, it is merely not in the Republic (federal subject) or the Autonomous Republic (Ukraine). RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today, Incnis Mrsi made this edit making Crimea question a re-direct to an old/deleted version of his Political status of Crimea article and pipe linked it into Crimean Peninsula with this edit. I'm not going to waste time figuring out what's going on here, but that doesn't look good to me. (I've got rid of the weird re-direct to the ex-article) DeCausa (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral about the protection, but the current redirect located there is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Right now, if you want to view the article, it sends you to Republic of Crimea; that is, to a subject of Russia. It should be changed to point to Crimean Peninsula or 2014 Crimean crisis. CodeCat (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I changed the redirect on Crimea question to 2014 Crimean crisis. DeCausa (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Continual disruptive editing on Brendan Eich

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

---

A group of dynamic IPs is currently continually inserting this edit onto the page Brendan Eich. I made a request for protection, but that page is very backlogged, and I am afraid it will take quite a while before my query will be answered. Artichoker^[talk] 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at is: could an admin please temporarily semi-protect the article Brendan Eich? The IPs show no signal of stopping, and continually reverting the vandalism every 30 seconds or so is getting tedious. Thanks. Artichoker^[talk] 22:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Now semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

David Bergstein

In this, the latest edit to the article on David Bergstein, an editor removes a paragraph, with the summary This is a BLP. Contributor editors have COI and are paid editors with an agenda against subject. Persistent sock puppetry. Page is being used as an attack page against subject BLP.

The paragraph (to which I haven't contributed) looks scrupulously sourced, to the LA Times and Wall St Journal. I can imagine that the claimed sources are fictitious, that their meaning is twisted in the summarizing, etc etc. But as no such claim is made in the edit summary, I'm not going to bother to look. I'd simply revert the edit and leave a tart (but polite!) comment to the editor, except for the fact that the previous editor (of the article, not the paragraph) was me. It might be claimed that I have COI and am paid to implement the agenda of some dark force(s) against the subject.

Actually I'd never knowingly heard of Bergstein until mere minutes before I made a series of edits two days ago. I'd read a plea (by TheRedPenOfDoom, I think it was) on some noticeboard for more disinterested eyes to take a look at the article. When I'd read the article, I still didn't think "Oh, that David Bergstein." I hadn't heard of him or the films in which he'd been involved. (But I would say that, wouldn't I? Paid editors with an agenda against a subject so rarely fess up "Yes, I am a paid editor with an agenda against the subject.")

Bergstein's article seems to be a chronic locus of dispute. There's this at WP:AN/I, this at BLP/N, and much more.

Well, some uninvolved administrator may wish to block a number of editors (myself included?) for paid editing in the service of an agenda against the subject. Or they might do something quite different. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC) .... PS yes I have "contributed to" (trimmed minor flab from) the particular paragraph. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

the edit summary quoted above by Hoary is accurate about two points Contributor editors have COI and Persistent sock puppetry. However, they apply to editor who made them, yet another in a string of sock accounts that appear, make 10 random innocuous edits to get autoconfirmed then head to David Bergstein to turn it into an advertisement with a curious knowledge of wiki-acronyms . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest semi-protection. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Except that these editors are auto-confirmed. Duh. I plead caffeine deficiency. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've brought up the matter here. I await reasoned arguments. NB I'll probably have to bow out because of (salaried) work commitments, and invite others to keep an eye on what happens. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This article should be considered for full protection if the problems continue. Any remaining one-sidedness in the article might be addressed through discussion at Talk:David Bergstein#A paragraph that at least one editor doesn't like. TRPoD did not say who he suspected to be the 'string of sock accounts' but recent editors who do not have wide experience elsewhere include User:MaxJTracy, User:Amytecko, User:A18kdE and User:LevilRowe. There has also been socking on the other side of the debate but it was back in October, 2013. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Jakandsig continues to evade block through (obvious) sockpuppets.

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

---

My name is "Gonna", and I with Indrian, TheTimesAreAChanging, and Sergecross73 have already seen Jakandsig's history of ongoing incivility and disruption. He started editing Wikipedia as an IP circa 2011 and since 2014 has attracted notoriety for the mass destruction he causes on editing primarily video game-related articles and high levels of personal attacks and anger toward other users. Initially he was blocked for limited periods of time, then Serge indefinitely blocked him after he made a rude, long message on his user talk blaming Indrian, TheTimes, and Serge for any chaos Jak made. Since the initial block, he has created sockpuppets often following the same patterns of his conflicts and damage to a wide range of video game articles including North American video game crash of 1983, Atari Jaguar, and Dreamcast. He's been here before, but I have to bring this up to AN/I because we've been surveying him and his sockpuppets for a while. I've considered changing Jak's block to a permanent site-ban because of the carnage he and his sockpuppets have done. Mr*|(60nna) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Jak is currently using BustaBunny as part of his block evasion. BustaBunny must be immediately blocked indefinitely. Mr*|(60nna) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. BustaBunny (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps...but they might understand a threat to vandalize an article by Mr. Bunny just now. [68] Someone might want to keep an eye the editor or look a little closer at their contributions.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I see Jak/Bunny is disruptively editing non-video game articles like Mitt Romney. Mr*|(60nna) 02:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Swagmaster111

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

---

I usually don't report these kinds of things but the post made on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=13547&diff=601136560&oldid=601136551 while removed used extremely racist and homophobic language that I don't feel is appropriate on a Wikipedia page. I feel this person should at the very least get talked to by an administrator if not temporarily banned.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think these statements should also be addressed as transphobic. I usually don't bite off on newbies but hate vandalism has become a big problem on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_crime&diff=prev&oldid=601135995 -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not "hate vandalism", or "phobic" anything; that's plain old garden-variety "u said butts hehe" vandalism. That said, the account is clearly here only to vandalise, and has been accordingly blocked (not "banned"). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit nastier than that, and considering the page it was on, I appreciate where the reporter is coming from. I've revdel'd the content of the edits in question as meeting criterion RD2 of Wikipedia:CRD. Since their author is now blocked indefinitely, I think this closes the incident. -- The Anome (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Politician continues to remove negative information from personal site following warning for soapboxing

The politician reported in this entry has made an additional edit to his own page after receiving a warning for these acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfpublishing (talk • contribs) 08:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The editor has stated, "I am not Deputy Flanagan but I work in his office", so they have admitted their conflict of interest. I will have a talk with them on their user talk page. -- Atama頭 21:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, @Selfpublishing:, can you clarify your role here? I see you have no edits outside of this article, you've shown up a little over a week after User:Lukeming, and you've seems to know quite a lot about Wikipedia...--v/r - TP 22:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tony Anthony Evangelist

Could anyone have a look at this section on my talk page? I suppose that I am involved in this matter so I don't believe i am the right person to take action if necessarily. Aside from this i am only around a couple of minutes, so i won't be able to handle this one any time soon myself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Someone's trying to remove well-sourced comments from an article. They need to stop. The hint that someone may be subject to legal action - but not necessarily Wikipedians - is close to NLT territory. I gave an NLT warning. Perhaps a nicely-worded friendly message about a) non-removal of sourced info, b) the dangers of making legal threats - especially the chilling effect and the possible block- plus his necessity to strike his apparent/borderline threat ASAP, c) how edit-warring is ban, and d) how Wikipedia really works might be in order. DP 12:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I left a short note on Excirial's talkpage. Frankly the complainant needs to contact OTRS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm the editor that did a lot of work on this article previously, including adding many well-sourced comments. The subject seems to have recently launched an attempt to clear his name and two websites have appeared supporting him. These appear to be WP:SPS and I don't regard them as WP:RS so am not citing them. I have just added a secondary source reporting on this, though. I took a lot of care to comply with WP:BLP when editing this article and it survived an AfD vote initiated by the subject via OTRS in Oct 2013. The subject clearly doesn't like the article as it details how he was discredited. I suspect it will attract further disruptive editing in the future. Thanks for your attention. SmilingFace (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Earlier today, I temporarily semi-protected the article, and issued final warnings to what appear to me to be socks of the editor above (FavourOfGod), suggesting that they pursue content issues at the article talk page. One of those accounts is also blocked as a username policy violation. In any case, I had not seen this thread nor the legal threats above (which is clearly what they are) at that point. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Roosh V

For the last 6 weeks this article has been under assault by the following two single-purpose accounts (obviously the same person), whose purpose is to defame the subject of the article in any way possible:

• Elmech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Egirl90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doixir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Added – Smyth\^talk 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

After ignoring repeated requests to discuss their issues on the talk page, today they made their first talk page edit ... which was to delete the discussion about them and insert forged comments from another user to make them appear biased.[69]

I request an indefinite block of both accounts. – Smyth\^talk 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, do you think? Guy (Help!) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that Egirl90 just overwrote this section with their own comment, which I reverted. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just gave a final warning to Egirl90. No indef blocks w/o a final warning, IMHO. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

They have continued the same pattern of behavior after the warning.[70] – Smyth\^talk 13:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given a final warning to Elmech. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

They have continued edit-warring.[71][72] Please block both accounts. Even a cursory examination of their edit history shows that they are the same person making the same edits. – Smyth\^talk 02:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Egirl90 has gone a talk page spamming spree it seems. Special:Contributions/Egirl90. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Egirl90 has been given a 48 hour block ... for harassing me!!! Bit harsh, but nevertheless the edit warring was annoying. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind that, will an admin please explain why we should not indefinitely block BOTH accounts for the following things:

• Being single-purpose accounts which exist for the sole purpose of attacking a living person.
• Persistent edit-warring over a period of weeks despite repeated warnings.
• Total failure to make even a pretense of collaboration despite repeated requests.
• Severe abuse of article and project talk pages, including deletion of discussion about them on two separate occasions, and forgery of other users' comments.

Again, I say BOTH accounts. Policy says that sanctions are imposed against individuals, not accounts. There's not even any legitimate reason for them to have two accounts; all it does is make communcation with them more difficult (not that they've ever responded to communication in any useful way). – Smyth\^talk 12:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The abuse is continuing and a third sockpuppet has been created. Can we please get some admin intervention? – Smyth\^talk 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm too sleepy to look into this further, let alone to take administrative action. However, I'll say that first appearances don't suggest single-purpose accounts which exist for the sole purpose of attacking a living person in the disruptive sense of the blocking policy. Rather, the editor seems to be piling more detail (apparently backed up by sources) to what's already in an article. While I don't think that obnoxiousness excuses obnoxiousness, the list of the biographee's book titles don't suggest a more or less innocent person is now being libeled outrageously by some monomaniac. (NB I am not excusing puppetry, the multiple posting of somewhat incoherent messages, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrespective of the content of their edits, their continual edit-warring and complete refusal to engage in discussion is the real problem here. – Smyth\^talk 14:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

how to explain an editor that removing other's comments from talk pages is not allowed?

I have observed one editor consistently doing it even after several notes about relevant WP policies. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you complaining about the removal of talk page comments written by sockpuppets ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I am complaining about removal of talk page comments. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a case against someone with evidence? Or just asking an ambiguous question for effect? Carrite (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

See contribs of Bobrayner - [73] He appears to be reverting a sock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The 'sock' he is reverting seems to come from two different countries! I checked whois for few IPs and found from both Serbia and Croatia.. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, the sockmaster has learned to use proxies to change their ip/location. What is your connection? You appear from nowhere and appear very concerned about this. Please disclose any previous accounts or IPs you have edited with. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockmaster? Congratulations to you, please assume good faith. Not all IPs are the same person. Topic is very hot these days... I am concerned because I've seen similar behaviors in the past, but this guy is on the extreme side... 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s. for foreigners, it was 15 years yesterday from NATO bombing... we do remember here, and talk about it.. no wander there are a few IPs on the topic these days... 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please answer my question about previous accounts/IPs you have used. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WTF is your problem? Learn about Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol. I don't keep log of IPs. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem is that random ips appearing from nowhere to complain about a someone socking being reverted QUACKS. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Imagine, just imagine for a moment, brief moment, that you are wrong. Imagine that if you can. All I can say is you would be a terrible laywer. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User talkpage reminder about the policy/guideline, followed by a specifically targetted complaint on an appropriate admin board if it continues. Given you've already known about that first part, there's nothing to do here (or anywhere) without a specific report. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What is appropriate admin board for that? This one or some other? 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For a violation of WP:TPO this board would be appropriate for getting assistance from an administrator. Note that removing any and all contributions from a sockpuppet is not a violation. -- Atama頭 17:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have had recently such an experience with this user. He simply reverted my edit by writing "rv sock" in the edit summary and continued to assume bad faith later. I got curious, so I looked his contributions and noticed that he did it before with other IP edits, though I can't tell whether those IPs are someone's socks, but there seems to be no way for me to make him consider the possibility that IPs who disagree with him aren't socks. Perhaps he has experienced a lot of problems with real IP socks before and he just continues use that assumption. I don't know.

But, this appears very rude to somebody who comes to edit and immediately gets accused of being a sock. I occasionally edit (very rarely), but that kind of behavior could discourage potential newcomers from further editing.

Somebody mentioned that "random IPs appearing from nowhere to complain about a someone socking being reverted" seem to be a good indicator that those IPs are indeed socks. Well, it might look that way on the first glance, but if you consider the situation in which there are people who don't have permanent IP address (and don't keep log of previous ones, as IP before me mentioned) and who legitimately complain about that problem, you come to conclusion that end result appears indistinguishable, therefore such reasoning is insufficient to conclude whether they are socks.

I hope that people who read this are reasonable and don't jump to conclusions.

Also, I found this page while looking again at his contributions and there I've seen that he reverted an IP on his talkpage with "bored of socks" in the edit summary (he obviously keeps assuming that all the IPs are socks) and then looked contributions of this IP and then found this page. Just saying this to spare anybody of asking how I got here. --94.253.177.168 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(Also, my previous IP address was 94.253.158.12, I've just noticed that it has changed, but I know what was I editing, so I've digged it from there, just in case someone needs it.) --94.253.177.168 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read this for context. Bobrayner put it very well when he stated, "This is our Balkan problem writ large; it's hard to tell the difference between real accounts, sockpuppets, sockpuppets which report/revert other sockpuppets, sockpuppets of the same person which report/revert each other, seemingly legitimate accounts who appear in discussions after being canvassed offsite, and so on." This is not one editor's problem, this is a problem with the entire topic area. IP sockpuppets have been relentless, to the extent where any IP who edits in a manner similar to other IPs who have been blocked as sockpuppets are assumed to be more sockpuppets. To an innocent editor who enters that topic area and faces that environment it's a bit unfair, but you have a choice and can register an account. The people dealing with this deluge of IP-hopping troublemakers don't have a choice, except maybe to do a blanket semi-protection of numerous articles, which really wouldn't be any better, would it? Basically, it sucks for all around, but at least you have a way out of the dilemma.

Think of it this way... To all appearances, you came "out of nowhere" and posted here on this page with your IP. Your only other listed contribution was one edit in 2012 (which may not have even been you). You've posted another IP address and stated that this used to be you, and we can assume that was you as well. If you had registered an account none of that would be necessary. Yes, I know that Wikipedia does not require that people register accounts to edit, but if you choose not to do that, you are choosing to edit with restrictions that registered accounts don't have. This is one of the problems you are going to run into. -- Atama頭 17:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I for example choose to edit as IP, not with account. I don't mind restrictions by WP, for example, semi-protection of the article. I go to relevant talk pages and share my ideas for improvements. Problem arises when some users start using 'sock' excuse to remove any valid commentary by IPs they disagree with, as can be seen in specific user's contribution history. Restrictions for IPs are one thing, abuse by another editor is something completely different. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes there really is sock puppetry. Your concern or dissatisfaction should be addressed to the people who abuse IP editing and spoil it for everyone else. Meanwhile, you can solve the problem by creating an account. IP editing is allowed as a way to bring in new editors. It probably isn't a good long term strategy for the contributor who becomes knowledgeable about Wikipedia and wants to be more deeply involved. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see, it's a big mess of a problem, so I might opt to create an account, although I edit very rarely. But how come that the same user got accused by IPs for false accusations of IP sockpuppeting? If only the numerous IP sock incidents are the cause, wouldn't there be many other editors with similar behaviour that IPs would complain about? Why only this user? --94.253.177.168 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Screw this, I (previously 94.253.158.12 and 94.253.177.168) decided to create an account to avoid this mess in the future. I would advice 77.46.172.143 to do the same. (But this question still bothers me.) --Feon (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that this user is the only person the IPs complain about. I'm pretty sure that this isn't, because administrators are blocking IPs as sockpuppets as well. I guarantee that the IPs aren't happy with them. This particular thread is against Bobrayner, and I linked to an old thread that was also about Bobrayner, but that means there aren't any about other editors.

I looked in the archives for this noticeboard, and most of the recent complaints from IPs in this area (I specifically just looked up "Kosovo" to narrow the search) are about Bobrayner. However, before then, most of the complaints were from Evlekis, who is now blocked for sockpuppetry, and often feuded with Bobrayner. There are also other threads, older ones, showing other editors (using named accounts) coordinating together off of Wikipedia (going back 8 years now?) conflicting with other editors. So I think that the problem with IPs has been pretty recent, and the person(s) coordinating the IPs have it out for him. I'm not saying that all IPs that Bobrayner has clashed with are socks (and I assume you yourself are not one) but many of them obviously were.

I'm sorry that you had to create an account to get around this mess. I think it's for the best though. Right now these articles are subject to WP:ARBMAC, maybe someone needs to ask the arbitration committee if some remedy is warranted specifically for the disruption for IPs. Or maybe they'll think that Bobrayner has been too harsh in this matter? I don't know. -- Atama頭 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Stmullin

During new page patrol, I came across Super-team and nominated it for AFD as a non-notable neologism. [[74]]

1. Subsequently it was speedily deleted by Kuru as a copyright violation, then immediately recreated by the user again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super-team&diff=601133567&oldid=601106145
2. Personal attacks/general incivility resulting from the user against kuru User_talk:Stmullin#Only_warning
3. The user progressivly added back in the original content from the deleted article.
4. I deleted the most blatant copyvio https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-team&diff=601206685&oldid=601206352, and was promptly reverted [[75]]
5. I tagged the article for speedy copyvio https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-team&diff=601209862&oldid=601209677 and the speedy tag was removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-team&diff=601211140&oldid=601209862
6. I warned the user about deleting speedy tags https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stmullin#March_2014
7. The user has now reported me to arb enforcement (with a highly malformed report)(probably thinking there were doing something like making a report here) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=601213012

Major trouting needed, possibly a WP:CIR block, I dunno. We report, you decide. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've speedily closed the AE report for all the obvious reasons.  Sandstein  17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't see anything that makes it suitable for deletion via G12 at the moment and neither in the versions Kuru deleted. It's a bit concerning that an admin deleted this twice when it doesn't meet G12 and also can't close an AFD. I haven't looked at whether it is a notable term, and I suspect it may not be, but it seems to me that Stmullin is justified to be pissed off at how their good-faith contributions have been dealt with. If anyone needs trouting it's Kuru. SmartSE (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? In the revision right before the first deletion (the 23:57 24 March 2014 revision, sorry, non-admins), there is a poorly-formatted bulleted list. The introductory sentence to that list is paraphrased (probably too closely), but the list itself is lifted word-for-word from the first source cited (other than the inconsequential change from numbering to bulleting). For reference, it is the list that starts on page S3 in the pdf. I don't really have time to comb through the rest of it (the most cursory of spot checks show nothing else, but my find function in the pdf doesn't seem to be working, and I haven't checked any of the other sources), but to say that there's nothing that makes it suitable for a G12 might be premature. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed that section from the current version and continued a discussion on the talk page as I think it's too long a quote to qualify for fair use. I also couldn't find any problems with the rest and given that the user in question has said, on the talk page, they were using a claim of fair use for the long quote, and so probably understand our copyright rules, I think it's reasonable to AGF and assume that the rest is fine. Dpmuk (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I also couldn't search the text in the pdf, but I skim read it and couldn't find anything that was copied word for word. G12 requires it to be unambiguous copyvio and also for all the content to be copied, so I'm 99 % confident that G12 can't apply. SmartSE (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, while I can't view the version in question, going by the current version I'm reluctant to criticise the admin. Nominally the article may not have meet the G12 criteria so perhaps what they should have done is blanked the entire article until it can be properly investigated.

But let's be realisitic here. We've just established that as always, our board for investigating copyright violations remains understaffed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Copyright help needed. And the sources used for the other sections appear to be books and other offline sources which will be difficult to check the article against.

So if half the article is an unambigious copyvio, I don't really trust the sole contributor to not have violated copyright in the rest. Rather than wasting our contributors time making sure they haven't I don't mind if an admin somewhat oversteps the mark and just deletes such nonsense. If this pissed of the contributor, I don't really give a damn.

They can either learn to respect copyright and our copyright policies or bugger off. The simple fact is, considering the amount of time wasted on them (remembering that many copyvios are only caught months or years later resulting in large chunks which have been worked on my many different editors being deleted), copyvios are IMO the most serious problem we have here on wikipedia and there's nothing wrong with sending the message to contributors that they need to take copyright seriously when writing. And I say this as someone who has probably only dealt with less than 20 and all fairly simple cases.

Even if you consider this harsh, consider whether the contributor will really be happier if their entire article was blanked for several months for anyone to actually deal with it?

And as for inappropriate admin behaviour, how many admins do you think would actually just delete the ambigious copyvio and leave the rest without checking it all against any of the alleged source material, despite the fact that this is clearly inappropriate? And much more serious to boot since it means that the possible copyvio content may not be checked or picked up for months or years, meanwhile many contributors waste their time on it.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but did you check it against all the other sources, too? It's not unheard of for people to copy bits of text from various sources and stick it all together, and that it's from multiple sources doesn't make it ineligible for G12. I agree that if the list was the only thing directly copied, then speedy deletion on copyright grounds isn't applicable, but I don't know that to be the case after only checking one possible source, and I don't think it's totally unreasonable for Kuru to have made a "where there's smoke, there's fire" type assumption, even if there wasn't any further copying from that single source. It might have been the objectively wrong choice, but like Nil Einne, I'm not sure I can fault Kuru for making it, given the information available to them at the time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

'There were no violations' and the character assassination is intolerable. How am I suppose to deal with administrative ignorance? Stmullin (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's already been established you copied the very long list (detailed enough that involved a significant amount of creativity), word for word in the current version and from what I understand, apparently in the older version. You made a very weak and poorly expressed claim of fair use but that's about it. This is a copyvio and the fact that you continue to deny this suggests that I was right, you either don't understand, don't care or both about copyright and how we deal with it on wikipedia (including our requirement that our content be under a free licence). Until you do, it's difficult to trust you to work with articles or that your claim that the rest of the article wasn't copyvio. You may consider this harsh, I don't care. I'm perfectly fine with being soft with new editors, even when I find them a bit disruptive or hard to deal with, but not when it comes to copyright and they show no desire to learn about how to deal with it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact it's worse than I thought. The version I saw was after Gaijin tried to remove the copyvio where you had added the statement that content was "quoted" [76]. Which is very poorly expressed but could be taken as an assertation of fair use and that the content was directly copied from another copyrighted source.

Before that, you didn't even make this unclear assertation of fair use [77]. You just made a point blank copyvio, effectively claiming that this content was your own work and released under the CC-by-sa and GFDL licence as required by our terms of use (and as mentioned in every edit window), when you had actually copied the entire list which involved a significant amount of creativity word for word and didn't make it clear this had been done. I'm guessing it was the same in the speedy deleted articles. The more I look at this, the more sure I am of my original assertation.

P.S. For those wondering why you can't search the PDF, try copying it. You will likely get nonsense. This PDF apparently uses special embedded fonts with a different character set, most likely as a form of copy protection a practice which sadly happens on occasion despite all the problems it causes.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I was in compliance with APA and your suggestion that I did not make every effort to comply with Wikipedia standards, which are not the same, is inappropriate. I understand your need to protect new administrators but not when you engage in character assassination with them . . . if you are using copyright as an excuse to bully people then we need to take this to Wikimedia. I am very responsible with my articles and spend many hours refining and collaborating with others. To be gunned down for no violation is unacceptable. APA is accepted by most reasonable people.Stmullin (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

'YOU all owe me a public Apology'Stmullin (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Per [78] the article has been redirected to HPT mooting the copyright/content issue (unless revdel is needed). So only various possible conduct issues would remain. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reported this to Wikimedia as harrasment.Stmullin (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Being advised to please follow the rules you agreed to when you got here is not harassment. Copyright violations and close-paraphrasing are hazardous to this project. DP 19:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The rules were followed . . . now it is your turn to follow rules . . . ignorance can be cured. Stmullin (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been quite clearly shown that you did not. We rely on people to overcome their ignorance of the rules by a) reading them and b) changing their behaviour when those rules are clearly explained. Simply saying "I used APA" does not excuse the copyright violation - only small direct quotes can ever be used. You would be wise to re-read the rules, accept that you were in error, and stop acting like you've been personally violated - it's YOU who put this project in legal jeopardy, so back away slowly and don't do it again DP 20:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear what "I was in compliance with APA and your suggestion that I did not make every effort to comply with Wikipedia standards, which are not the same, is inappropriate." actually means. How does this apply to your evident violation of our copyvio policy? I don't see anywhere above that you have shown that you haven't violated our copyvio policy or that you won't do so in the future. And Wikimedia does not govern us and isn't going to get excited about this. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"evident violation of our copyvio policy" is a blatant lie. Stmullin (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Stmullin dial the rhetoric down a notch. Demanding apologies is all well and good but I don't see anyone here that actually agrees with you. I'd suggest dropping the WP:STICK and try and not be a WP:DICK cause that's the way this comes across. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. As I said above, in the revision that Kuru originally deleted (the first time), you included a bulleted list that was word-for-word copied from this PDF. While you had identified that document as a general source for the article, you did not explicitly attribute your extensive copying from the text to that source, and furthermore, you did not enclose the entire quotations in quotes or use any other sort of contextual indication that it was a direct quote. That makes it a copyright violation. The question of whether G12 was an appropriate rationale is a question of whether the entire article was copied from somewhere. Regardless of whether the entire article was copied or not, though, that copied list itself was a copyright violation, as it was copied without any indication of such or attribution. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC) APA is a style and referencing guide. It helps you avoid plagarism concerns in an academic setting. It doesn't AFAIK tell you much about how to deal with copyrighted content and ensure that in a colloborative encyclopaedia released under a free licence, your content is compliant with the licensing requirements. (For that matter, AFAIK APA doesn't really tell you much about dealing with copyright issues in any setting. I assume you understand that plagarism and copyright are only very loosely related.)

In the particular case of wikipedia, this means that your content needs to be released under a compatible licence if it's not your own work and the terms of this free licence should be complied with. If you are using work which is not available under a free licence, you need to ensure the content is used in an appropriate way allowed under copyright law. More to the point, in the case of wikipedia. you need to ensure you comply with WP:NFCC, which means that it needs to be clear if there is any copyrighted content copied verbatim and not used under a free licence. There are also other requirements like requiring minimal use etc we require to ensure that our content largely remains freely licenced which aides reusers.

When you violate our copyright requirements you make problems for reusers. For example, people would likely assume the list you copied was under a free licence as there was nothing to suggest otherwise but clearly it's not.

Also, while there's probably little legal risk to the foundation, this doesn't mean there isn't a problem for wikipedia. The simple fact is, anyone reading the early version of the article I linked to would likely assume that as per out TOS, policies and guidelines, the list was under a free licence when it was not. Where are therefore making incorrect assertations about the copyright status of the list.

For you to not understand this as a new editor (if you are one, if you're saying your not then I'm fine with that but it makes matters even worse), I consider barely tolerable. As I've said while I'm perfectly fine new editors not understanding our policies and guidelines that well in the general case. But I'm particularly prickly about the case of copyright because of the amount of time it wastes when users violate copyright and do think there is a responsibility for new editors to at least try to understand such a fundamental principle of wikipedia before they cause problems which can waste very significant amounts of time.

Still if you had made an effort to understand and learn when plenty of other editors before me said there was a problem, there would be no point worrying about it too much any more. But you didn't and your comments here suggest you still don't care. This I consider intolerable and I'm not going to apologise for criticising this.

P.S. I perhaps didn't really properly explain why I disagree with Dpmuk that we should AGF that the rest of the content was okay, since I missed that comment. Firstly, I don't know if anyone is suggesting there's any real bad faith involved, definitely I didn't intend to suggest any. (Some may suggest not caring about copyright is acting in bad faith, I don't agree.)

The problem is when an editor doesn't understand copyright and how it interacts with wikipedia, acting in good faith doesn't prevent them violating copyright. What I initially saw was concerning enough. Now that I've that the editor didn't even make the 'quoted' claim initially and their replies, these more or less prove IMO that we have no guarantee the editor really understands any of this so IMO the only choices for the original article were deletion or blanking and listing it as a copyright problem until (probably months later) someone got around to dealing with it.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I do understand copyright, I have complied with every request for edit, have never put this project at risk, and I am dedicated to curing ignorance.

Stmullin (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that it isn't true. When multiple experienced editors are trying to tell you what you did wrong, don't dismiss their concerns and deny all of it, listen to their concerns and fix what you did wrong. Failing to do so can lead to being blocked. If you want to cure ignorance, begin by not being willfully ignorant yourself when others are trying to help you. -- Atama頭 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah ha doing a blockquote was the appropriate solution . . . why didn't anyone suggest that?????Stmullin (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1) the solution was don't create an article on a topic that already exists. and 2) don't make almost the entire content a copy paste since even if attributed, it probably isn't fair use and thus still a copyright violation. but since you did not in any way indicate that your content was in fact a quote, how were we to suggest that you rendered the quote incorrectly. You created the article as if you were the author, we cannot read your mind. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Ranking Update

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bangladesh%E2%80%93Malaysia_relations

I've had to face vicious personal attacks from this user at the above talk page. Such ugly behavior is simply uncalled for; my edits were not a complete duplication and any issues could have been raised in a civil manner. This person's apparent concerns were later understood and addressed by myself, although he never raised them in the talk page, and instead mounted an edit war. He should be warned and asked to apologize for his highly abusive remarks.--Bazaan (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking to m:DICK is a borderline attack (it's often not considered one even though the essay itself says "Implicitly or explicitly calling people dicks is a dick-move: don't use this essay as a justification to do so.") but the edit summary here and here is more explicit. On the other hand, Ranking Update apologized for the insult here and toned down the rhetoric afterward. They even withdrew from the conflict completely. So there doesn't seem to be anything actionable at this point.

Keep in mind that you both violated the three revert rule at that article, and both were eligible to be blocked (now moot since the edit war has ended). That was completely inappropriate; discussion should have begun after the first, and at least the second revert from either of you, but it really got out of hand. Therefore your statement at the start of that discussion "your edit war is unacceptable" applies to you as well. Keep that in mind the next time this kind of conflict happens, or you might find yourself blocked for it. -- Atama頭 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User Bismar007

• Bismar007 (talk · contribs)

Bismar007 is a WP:SPA account, who promotes ITVmediaPlayer , who may have a conflict of interest (coi warning). He's repeatedly remove templates from ITVmediaPlayer, and has been blocked twice for doing so. His recent editing includes more promotion, copyright violations, and blanking of templates. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)