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

I just received a legal threat over the phone about Yank Barry

The caller refused to identify himself, but "just wanted to let me know" that legal action would proceed tomorrow. I directed him to the Wikipedia legal department, but he insisted that it would be directed toward editors. - Richfife (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• A recent SPA
• A slightly less recent SPA

Neither of them seem to be on the verge of throwing around legal threats, though.

If you should get any more phone calls, do also let them know about the talk page or about OTRS (not in those words). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also let them know that editing to balance the article properly continues - I've just blanked large parts of it per WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There was undue weight, and use of primary sources, but some of the information removed appeared to be properly sourced - mainstream, non-tabloid newspapers - including one described as a newspaper of record, and was relevant to the article. Peter James (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No good being appeared to be properly sourced. Get it right, then include it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're asserting that it was "not properly sourced", but not getting into specifics. How is it not properly sourced? The sources look fine to me and to multiple other editors. Almost none of the text removed by you was added by me, by the way. - Richfife (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to notify the WMF legal department at legalwikimedia.org or, if you feel it is urgent, at emergencywikimedia.org where someone will make sure the right people see it. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: please do not contact emergencywikimedia.org except to report serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc. We cannot help with legal threats. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. Struck. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Richfife, have you ever put your phone number on Wikipedia as a contact number? I ask because if you haven't, something is seriously wrong here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not. However, as a personal point, I make sure I am easy to contact. I'm in the phone book, etc. As I mentioned though, there was no caller ID and the caller refused to identify themselves. So far, just a single data point. An attempt at a chilling effect, I assume. - Richfife (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Has there been any particularly belligerent users or IPs editing about Yank Barry as of late? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Could be, could be - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You might do some Googling on your name and phone number. Someone out there might be bragging about having heckled you.--v/r - TP 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh. Let 'em heckle. - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: "User:Richfife encouraged people to "heckle" him in person, and then they did so". Excuse me? Since when is having a listed phone number an invitation to heckle? All I said was I didn't care, not that I was encouraging it. Is there any actual evidence that I'm being heckled? I just checked and came up with nothing. Yank Barry has a history of attempting to shut down criticism and there's no evidence that this isn't more the same. - Richfife (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess what, buddy. Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy... we don't care about your cause any more than anyone else does. Begone! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that this was an off Wikipedia legal threat directed at multiple editors and needs to be taken seriously, right? - Richfife (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I am taking it hugely seriously. Just look at my face. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the deletions made by Demiurge1000 [1] being overreaction to the threat. It's well cited that the subject of the article was convicted of extortion. The Texas prison deal is also well cited. That deletion should have been discussed on Talk first. This article has been the subject of massive COI editing, extensive sockpuppeting, and is about someone who is heavily into self-promotion (he has a PR agency and is having a movie made about himself) and multi-level marketing. It was originally created by an SPA as a promotional piece, mentioned as such on the COI board, and then a number of experienced editors started finding more info about the article's subject. That's how we got here. John Nagle (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, see WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly in regards to this edit, you've been repeatedly nakedly asserting that the sourcing isn't good enough and not responding to people pointing out that the sourcing seems fine and asking for more detail. Are you too busy in real life right now? What's going on? - Richfife (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above brief "No" could use some expansion. Let's discuss the content issues on Talk:Yank Barry. Thanks. As for the threat, I've edited the Yank Barry article, I edit under my own name and am easy to contact, and haven't received any threats. John Nagle (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think what Demiurge1000 means to say is WP:COATRACK. We have a BLP subject here where 85% of the article is negative. Per WP:UNDUE, the article needs to be balanced. The negative info needs to be rewritten in the way that it doesn't hijack the article disproportionate to this person's life.--v/r - TP 06:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If ~85% of media coverage of the subject is negative, "balancing" the article would be what would make it POV/UNDUE. (Not saying that's necessarily the case in this particular case, but an "85% negative article" is not, necessarily, automatically UNDUE.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had much the same concerns as TParis since I first got involved at the article. It used to be more blatant, the article was using the "criminal" infobox and the lead focused more heavily on his legal problems. The difficulty we keep running into is that there are two kinds of sources for Yank Barry. There are independent sources which are overwhelmingly negative, and there are press releases (or news articles that cite press releases) that are positive. It's difficult to get a balanced article when the press is focused on the problems he's had, and when there is a very blatant PR campaign to improve his image (a PR campaign that extends to Wikipedia; the article has been hit multiple times by sockpuppets connected to his organization as well as this recent personal threat against Richfife). I first got involved in the article from a request at WP:COIN because of those problems. I wish there was reliable coverage of such basic biographical information as his childhood and family, his marital history, even his musical and business career. Maybe someone with better resources and/or research skills can help out. -- Atama頭 15:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To help illustrate how widespread the problem at the article has been, here is a list of single-purpose accounts who have only edited this article or edited other articles related to Yank Barry, just in 2014 (there were more in the past):

• Gogvc (talk · contribs) - Since blocked for being a promotional account, username matches the domain name of Yank Barry's charity organization web site.
• Theprincessmom1 (talk · contribs) - A CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Gogvc, also blocked.
• Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs) - The original creator of the article, now blocked for "editing against consensus, likely COI, plugging of one subject, etc.".
• Fmrjournalist (talk · contribs) - Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Accurateinfo973.
• Npl10 (talk · contribs) - Not blocked, and admittedly not editing promotionally, has only edited to remove information about an upcoming film Barry is allegedly producing.
• Bestmomever (talk · contribs) - A suspected sock puppet of Gogvc, CU says it is a "likely" match to Gogvc, the SPI case is awaiting administration.
• BeadCatz (talk · contribs) - Just showed up today, editing in a very promotional manner and without sources.

Again, this is just since January of this year. And this only includes the accounts, there have been numerous IPs making such edits, and there have been similar SPAs editing since the article's creation in 2010, including those whose usernames blatantly connected them to Barry's organization. -- Atama頭 17:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and new SPA BeadCatz (talk · contribs) just re-inserted the bogus info which Atama had just deleted. [2] The subject of the article employs a PR agency ("The Publicity Agency", Tampa, FL)[3] to polish his image, and that does seem to extend to Wikipedia. We've been to COIN twice, AN/I three times, and sockpuppet investigations as listed above. The edits driven by the PR effort are so inept and heavy-handed that they're more annoying than effective. Kind of like the anonymous phone threat. It may be time for semi-protection, just to reduce the noise level. John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I warned BeadCatz after they violated WP:3RR at the article (they have reverted 4 other editors today). Another revert and I'll report at WP:ANEW (I won't bother to report someone for violating it if they hadn't been alerted to the rule first, especially a new editor - I assume they are new). Having SPAs show up to edit war and insert promotion isn't unusual at this article, unfortunately, and it's one reason why it has been a challenge to constructively develop it. -- Atama頭 18:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, BeadCatz, with a Wikipedia career of 2 hours, just hit 4RR at Yank Barry.[4]. They've been reverted by three different editors, and given multiple warnings. Please pull their plug, and I'd suggest a week of semi-protection so we can do something else for a while. John Nagle (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that the account was created in 2012. Are we dealing with a marketing firm sock farm?--v/r - TP 18:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked all the other possible socks listed above. All the others were newly registered, except for the one that created the Yank Barry article four years ago. John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo5269 (talk · contribs). It's like drinking from an SPA firehose. - Richfife (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the Dr did make two other edits prior to posting to the Yank Barry talk page, to unrelated articles (the biographies of a professional wrestler and an American football player). So this doesn't fit the pattern of previous SPAs. Though it does seem odd to show up out of nowhere to make practically the same argument of older SPAs. Also, I checked the creation log and the new account was created 4 hours before the block of BeadCatz so that doesn't suggest block evasion to me. -- Atama頭 22:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the possibility they learnt the trick many SPAs learn of at least trying to appear interested in other stuff can't be ruled out. The account creation is interesting. Creating before a block isn't a definite sign that it isn't block evasion since it isn't uncommon among block evaders, particularly persistent ones, to create and perhaps even start using a sleeper before they are blocked. Particularly if it's clear they are likely to be blocked. However it seems BeadCatz only had one edit, to their sandbox, when the new account was created so it doesn't seem it was obvious they would be blocked, unless perhaps they'd been around long enough to recognise that there's a fair chance the BeadCatz would be quickly blocked. Alternatively, they may have been hoping for multiple simultaenous socks. Another possibility is there's some degree of meatpuppetry and the SPAs actually belong to at least 2 different people. In which case the BeadCatz and Dr could be different editors. Either way while it may be premature to block, I think the Dr account should be carefully monitored, although I also wonder if it will stay around anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards meatpuppetry right now, but the fairly advanced level of the edits (properly formatted external link summaries for instance) makes me wonder. - Richfife (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The new "Dr Gonzo5269" editor is commenting on the talk page, not editing the article. We can try to communicate with them. That's progress. I put a note to the Yank Barry PR operation on User_talk:BeadCatz#Promotional_editing, pointing out that what they're doing is counterproductive. Maybe they'll engage more. Note to Barry's PR operation, if you're reading this: Get one account, make it clear you represent Barry, and discuss what you want to say on Talk before editing the article. You might get somewhere. Using lots of new accounts making hit and run edits is not going to get you anywhere. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out I am a new account so I'm not totally clear what the issue is here but I do not appreciate my name being thrown around in this manner. I have many interests on Wikipedia. I am a fan of Steve Van Zandt and it was through following him I heard of Yank Barry. I remembered liking the song "Louie Louie" as a kid. I began to do some research and it was from that I learned of the multiple Noble Peace Prize nominations which I happen to find rather impressive. Any info I post about Yank Barry will be something that has been reported in the past. I do know the Richfife account replied to my post in a heartbeat. Does he have something against Yank Barry? From my limited initial research I have found mostly positive information about Yank Barry. He seems to be genuinely helping the refugees from Syria. I will continue my research as I am now thoroughly intrigued by this whole ordeal. I do not see why there is a fight here or why some editors are against Yank Barry. Having said that I am not a meat puppet, a sock puppet, and I certainly didn't call anyone. As long as I cite my sources I don't see any problem with having a positive opinion about Yank Barry, Stephen Neal, Ben Askren, or anyone else I decide to take an interest in. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Richfife continues adding unsourced material on BLP Yank_Barry

This user is clearly violating BLP rules and directly going against WP BLP rules. He has made a claim that the subject filed bankruptcy. This is a serious accusation on a BLP page. It must be backed up with actual and real court documents of the bankruptcy filing and charge off. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. But USer:Richfife continues to ignore this. This is not the first instance of his complete disregard for the serious nature of such actions on a BLP. There is a zero tolerance policy on this matter as outlined by Jimmy Wales policy here: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.

This page has seen so much negative and clearly biased postings aimed at causing financial harm to the subject. I went through the entire Talk:Yank_Barry#Nobel_Peace_Prize_nominee and was shocked to see this statement by User:Richfife, Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't. My guess is that he will periodically "wait for the dust to settle" and come back. Keep the page on your watchlists. on 03:59, 14 April 2014. This user should be blocked immediately to maintain the integrity of WP. (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

And how do we know you're not hired by Yank Barry to whitewash his article, hm? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Same way I might ask, Jeske, why I should trust you to be balanced and neutral about a topic of this nature? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC to Demiurge) Ganberreh has, including this An/I post, 6 edits to his name, all about or on the talk page of Yank Barry, all made today despite the account being made on 23 May. If you've read the above thread, then you should know that there is a serious concern that that article is the centre of a concerted PR campaign, so a new editor coming on and joining the debate pro-Barry should be put under more scrutiny than normal. I suspect Ganberreh is associated with the PR campaign. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a WP:RS reliable source for the bankruptcy.[5] It's an article in ArtNews written by a notable Bloomberg writer, William D. Cohan. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The material on the bankruptcu is sourced, is sourced to a reliable source (the Montreal Gazette), and has been since it was added. The claim that we need court documents rather than newspaper coverage is a call for primary sources over secondary one, which flies right in the face of WP:SECONDARY. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Montreal Gazette is not reliable until you can proof it. That is a basic common need for all editors to be comfortable with the accuracy of the information. Unless you can get a copy of it an upload for reading, it is not reliable. If we accept this, there will be no end to editors say, "trust me" I have the backup. the burden is on you to backup your content, not the other way around. That is a basic requirement, you know that. Then ArtNews, if that one passing statement is accepted, then all passing statements on all the other articles written in so many articles I have found on CNN should be admitted. But those have been struck out claiming them to be not well sourced. We cannot have double standards and selective here. The standards of source acceptance need to apply to keep this page neutral. (Ganbarreh (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

from WP:OFFLINE "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. In fact, many great sources are only available offline." If you want to confirm an offline source, then you should be the one that looks through the Montreal Gazette's news archives. To claim that a source is not reliable because it is not online is complete WP:BULLOCKS. —Farix (t | c) 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is the burden of the editor who posted it to back up and confirm the source. (Ganbarreh (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

No it's not, Ganbarreh, please read WP:BURDEN. Per the footnote there, "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)." At this point, you are the one with the obligation, per our verifiability policy. And you have two different sources to dispute now. -- Atama頭 16:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As Atama has stated, Richfife has met his end of WP:BURDEN by providing a reference to a reference to a reliable, third-party source. You, however, are not assuming good faith by claiming that because the source is not online, it must be "fake" without providing any evidence to support your argument. —Farix (t | c) 12:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We are threatening his livelihood and rightly so

That's a quote. Is that what Wikipedia is for? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is a partial quote, missing an opening parenthesis... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a reliable source for Barry's sources of income being somewhat sketchy, a CTV expose from 2002.[6] Excerpt: "Barry then went after the better life with a vengeance. Today as a member of the ultra-exclusive Ocean View Golf Club, Barry claims he makes his money from VitaPro and managing offshore investments. But many people say that's just a cover. They think Yank Barry is just a smooth talker with questionable business practices. Investigative journalist David Marchant is one of the few reporters keeping an eye on the world of offshore banking...". The details follow at the link given. That CTV article is far, far more negative on Barry than the Wikipedia article. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade: It was a wildly inappropriate comment on my part and I admit it. What I wanted was to point out was that this was a situation that was likely to spin out of control and I semi-consciously resorted to overheated language to make my point. I wound up making rather more points that I intended to. That being said, this is not a case where I'm standing on the mountaintop crusading solo against Barry. Many, many people are watching the article from both sides and I hope that we are all watching each other's backs to make sure we don't go over the line when it comes to the article itself. - Richfife (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem with SPAs at that article. Agreed? There's also a problem with SPAs getting riled up to participate there because they think people biased against them are dominating the discussion there.

Did you give them a very good reason to think that? Yes.

Is there a lack of people willing and able to deal with the SPA problem there? No.

Richfife, would it hurt you a great deal to take a break from that article for a month or two?

The same question for the other accounts that have made a very large number of edits there recently.--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And you think that the endless stream of pro-Berry SPAs is going to take a break from the article because you ask then to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The semi-protection will help. Since I'm not obsessed with the topic (and really don't care about it at all), I quite frankly have absolutely no objection to it being full protected until the SPAs (and other obsessives) get bored enough to either go away or discuss it properly on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to think about it for a bit, but I'm leaning towards no for a number of reasons. First, whether you want to take it seriously or not, there was an effort to scare both myself and a number of other unnamed editors off the article IRL in the form of a threatening phone call. This brings things perilously close to negotiating with terrorists. Second, given the suspicion of of sockpuppetry, it's not clear who the editors with large numbers of edits actually are. Third, comment on the edits, not the editor. As of late, the majority of my edits to the article proper have been either obviously neutral or positive in nature. Fourth, lets call another spade a spade, I don't think you're particularly objective about me either. "Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy" doesn't exactly line up with the changes I've made to the page. I hadn't even heard of him until a routine run of edits to remove non-notable Nobel peace prize nominations sparked an explosion. - Richfife (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I've only made three edits on Yank Barry during May 2014. I'd been looking at business-related COI problems from WP:COIN, such as Banc de Binary, Riak, and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, where, like Yank Barry, there's heavy promotional editing. I've made lots of comments on the Yank Barry talk page after finding sources, and I've been on WP:COIN, WP:ANI, and WP:BLPN due to the COI/SPA/sock problems. I'd never heard of Yank Barry until the article popped up on WP:COIN. There's general consensus from the editors involved who have a track record on Wikipedia outside Yank Barry articles. Disagreements are hammered out on talk. There's no edit warring going on between any non-SPA accounts. All the trouble is coming from editors with very narrow editing interests. It's not clear how those editors are connected, but it's clear that as soon as one is blocked, another pops up. Admins, figure out a way to get us out of whack-a-mole mode. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that Richfife currently faces bullying in the form of legal threats, I support his brave decision to stay with the article. We should stand against such attempts to control who is involved in Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I seem to possibly be among the group mentioned in a post above, I will respond. I only care about the verifiable facts on any article I edit on Wikipedia. I only care about how articles reflect on Wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedia. Sometimes when I find articles that are not as good as they could be, then I'll try to fix the issues whatever they are - that's what I'm here for...to edit. If other editors misinterpret my efforts to source statements, to keep a dispassionate tone, to maintain a neutral point of view in any Wikipedia article, as being either for or against any issue or person, that has not ever been nor ever will be my intent. I have attempted to discuss my edits on Yank Barry on its associated talk page. I have attempted to place Welcome templates on any new editor's talk page who edits the article. I have done nothing on the Yank Barry article that would necessitate my having to take a break from editing it, I have done nothing there that I need to apologize for. Shearonink (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Progress

There's been a little progress. We have some new editors working on the article, Editingisthegame (talk · contribs) (5 days on Wikipedia, made a few edits on other articles before focusing on Barry-related articles) and Ganbarreh (talk · contribs) (4 days on Wikipedia, Barry-related articles only). These new editors write on talk pages and can be argued with. This is an improvement over the previous long string of rather inept SPAs and socks. The new editors demonstrate some expertise with Wikipedia, so they're probably not really new. We'll see what happens next. It looks like we don't need admin intervention right now, but please keep watching the article. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Ganbarreh reminds me so very, very much of Accurateinfo973, who also argued extensively on the article talk page. In particular, this comment to me smells fishy, with the phrase "malicious campaign" reminding me of this comment from Accurateinfo973 talking about a "smear campaign". The tendentious repetition of the same argument is also similar. I've been debating whether or not to make another entry at the SPI, I'm thinking I will now.

In the case of Editingisthegame, though, I don't feel like this editor is the same. They're new, yes, but they aren't focused on Yank Barry, nor are their edits promotional; to the contrary they've been arguing against Ganberreh too. They've been pretty even-handed both on the discussion page and on the main article, and I welcome their input. -- Atama頭 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I may have written my comment above too soon. Today we have new EditorLouisiana (talk · contribs), editing only the talk page of Yank Barry. The general editing trend of the SPAs is 1) insist that Barry was a member of The Kingsmen, and 2) keep the "Nobel peace prize nomination" in the article. It's going to be a long summer. John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As a relatively new person, I knew I would be open to suspicion the moment I posted something into the Yank Barry page. I read through the history of this page in all of the forms. My goal is to bring in honest, credible information to all the posts I am apart of on this website. These biography pages will be most people's first stop when researching people, so the information should not be full of promotional content and uncheck facts. My intent was not to rock any sort of boat. I do not mean to insist anything out of my discussions on the talk page other than facts that have sources. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Editingisthegame: I appreciate your contributions and I hope you continue your participation at the article, we can use your help. :) -- Atama頭 15:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Posts like this one[7] shows that @Ganbarreh: is not showing any form of good faith relating to editors adding sources mentioning Barry's court case. Not sure what remedy there is for this short of blocking. But he has been told repeatedly in multiple venues by multiple editors now that sources don't have to be online to be reliable. But instead, he goes WP:IDHT.[8][9] —Farix (t | c) 11:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Ganbarreh and sleeper account BlyMyShy (talk · contribs) as  Confirmed socks of Accurateinfo973.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo you are again my hero. :) I was in the middle of doing SPI and gathering up evidence for Ganberrah when I noticed that you'd already blocked them for being a sockpuppet of Accurateinfo973. Thanks again! -- Atama頭 15:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're doing all the heavy-lifting in actually dealing with all of these sock farms and COI editors, I'm just pushing some buttons.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

May want to look at EditorLouisiana (talk · contribs), another SPA that suddenly got involved in the Yank Barry article making the same exact arguments as Ganbarreh. —Farix (t | c) 21:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo5269 (talk · contribs) may also be another sock as they are making the same WP:QUACKing sounds as the other two. —Farix (t | c) 21:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo! Can you check for socks one more time as of now? I'm really making an effort to keep my paranoia to a minimum. Honest. - Richfife (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

PresidentistVB

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

---

The behavior of this user seems to me wholly unacceptable including personal attacks (for example referring to other users as monkeys diff). A review of this situation seems long overdue. --_nonsense ferret 09:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Content redacted per some policy I read somewhere.] PresidentistVB (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Monkey Two (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

the use of multiple misleading signatures on the same talk page is certainly something I have advised you against (diff). --_nonsense ferret 13:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A few more things I'll submit since there is a mountain of information and it can be hard to file through it all, especially since he attempted to delete most of the things he's said from the relevant talk pages. Monkey Two has lead other editors to believe he was new to Wikipedia only to reveal almost a week later that he's had at least one other account before on WP. Here he posted on his page that he was an administrator and another administrator had to remove it.Here he threatened to "level" me and threatened hostility if I didn't accept his OR arguments. When he couldn't provide any reliable secondary sources to support his OR arguments, he turned to "tag bombing" the article. When they were removed by another editor and replaced with a single factual accuracy dispute tag, he went back and tagged the entire lead again. I was willing to try DRN and was waiting for him to create a post before addressing any of these issues, but since another editor has stepped in, I guess that's at of the question now.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is very important to separate questions about the appropriateness of editor behaviour and substantive decisions about article content. I would suggest the former only are suitable for discussion here. --_nonsense ferret 17:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Content redacted per some policy I read somewhere.] Dr. Matt (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with nonsenseferret, which is why I didn't post any concerns about content and all of my diffs speak to behavioral issues. Also, is there something against posting entire articles to talk page sections? He's done this before on another user's talk page, and now he posted another full WP article to the John Punch talk page here. I don't know if a WP policy says anything about this specifically, but I do feel it's rather disruptive. However, this is only a drop in the bucket compared to how he's obliterated the talk page by adding over 20 new sections and subsections and dissecting/transplanting previous discussions so those conversation no longer make sense and are impossible to follow.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Ibid.]Dr. Matt (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

no idea what any of this means, but if the allegation is that I have removed something from your revision history, then I'm sure anyone will be happy to confirm this is technically impossible. --_nonsense ferret 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Ibid]Dr. Matt (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

:My reply seems to have been deleted so I will repost it - I have no idea what any of this means, but if the allegation is that I have removed something from your revision history, then I'm sure anyone will be happy to confirm this is technically impossible. --_nonsense ferret 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

in fact my statement above was restored by another user, so striking the additional copy. --_nonsense ferret 21:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I should be very grateful if you could confirm whether the above comment should be taken as a statement of intent to bring legal proceedings in this matter - I think it is very important to be clear about what such comments mean, just so there is no misunderstanding. --_nonsense ferret 21:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Ibid]Dr. Matt (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sure it would be much easier for everyone to keep this conversation together - why not post here --_nonsense ferret 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X]I concur. See below. PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• He cannot; he's been blocked (by me) for a whole whackload of reasons that are painfully obvious to all the panda ₯’ 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X]Not "all." PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

...and he's removed his block notice. I'll let someone else take care of that the panda ₯’ 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X]He took care of it himself and thanks you for telling him privately. PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Er, lest there be any confusion or misunderstanding, blocked users are free to remove block notices from their own talk pages. There is no requirement that they wear a scarlet letter for the duration of their block, so for the moment there is nothing to "take care of". Encouraging someone else to go to his talk page and replace the block notice is just poking the bear. (And it's pretty obvious that this particular editor is already more than sufficiently wound up....)

A problem only arises if a blocked editor removes notices related to his or her block and then requests unblocking—the concern in such a situation is that an editor may be attempting to conceal or mislead regarding the reasons for their block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. They may not remove the block notice while blocked. I remember the RFC where that was clarified quite well. If someone has removed that wording, then they did it in violation of the RFC the panda ₯’ 00:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to call 'citation needed' on that. If an editor isn't in the process of appealing the block, the block notice isn't critical information. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I also thought the previous discussions had decided that blocked editors could remove the block notice (if not appealing the block), but it appears that is not the case—for example, see WT:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?. I suspect a major RfC will be needed to clarify the issue because the WP:BLANKING wording is very waffly and there are two radically different interpretations of what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That wording at WP:BLANKING just isn't how things are done. "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." "Any other notice"? Seriously? An AN/I discussion or an ArbCom decision imposes a topic ban or interaction ban, and the affected user can never remove that notice from his talk page? I know that that isn't enforced. Ever, anywhere.

Even a block notice (or a declined unblock request) is only important information if the user is in the process of appealing the block. If a blocked user blanks his talk page in a fit of pique, we don't force him to put the block notice back up. I hope that an admin who tried to edit war over that sort of nonsense would get little sympathy here—as the only purpose to doing so is to piss off the blocked editor in hopes of provoking them into actions that might draw a longer block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that the sort of ambulance-chasing non-admins that obsessively stalk this board, go around blocked users' talk pages expressly for the purpose of re-adding block notices even where the blocked editor is not making an appeal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I have suggested a modification of the extant guideline at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Current wording of the first bullet does not reflect actual practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The tone and language used by PresidentistVB sounds strangely familiar, and not in a good way. As for "it may be evidence", are we to take this as an indication that he is headed for Trenton, NJ? Guy (Help!) 19:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

[X]I hope my Talk page comment clarified it for you, nonsenseferret. If not, the answer most certainly is "no." The statement was to let anyone and everyone who would vapidly prosecute another user in a public venue, especially one with that user's name on it, and even if invited to do so, know that they would be the most likely subjects of such a proceeding, and not WP. I'm sorry for you all that you felt the question had to be asked; more so because you didn't know where I was going with it, and i think all of you should have. (And whatever happened to new user good faith/trust? - And yes, Scoobydunk, I am a new user, if 5-7 weeks is considered new. My previous account was used, to my recollection, over a period of years past to upload images.) I don't correct people, usually; but in here, I felt it my duty. The rules of the page specifically state, "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here." I take that to mean, since it is reiterated twice in the Terms of Use policy, "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or [if a] potential [for] libel/defamation exists, do not post it here," because that is what it should say, according to the section of Wikimedia Foundation's article, subtitled "Disputes and lawsuits." It almost makes titling a section on this page with a user's name an invitation. And I'll be a monkey's uncle, because I don't know what could be so important as to incite anyone to take that kind of risk, especially, in this case, when I don't even know why the section was created in the first place. Now, unless someone wants to make an accurate allegation (I've already told the Oversight Committee why none of Scoobydunk's assertions were anything more that I could tell - and I would know- than self-incriminating evidence of something, possibly stalking), then I make the motion that this section be considered for deletion, so I can get out of here. Thanks. PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• Floquenbeam, PresidentistVB also removed a large number of their comments from this thread. Is this really acceptable, even under WP:REDACTED? It essentially removes most of the context, which might be useful at some later date. G S Palmer (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I know he did, and no it's not really kosher. But at this point I can't imagine any benefit (now or in the future) to trying to add them back. If you're asking my opinion, I'd just leave it alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN and Personal attacks from User:Ansegam

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

---

I am having problems with user:Ansegam (talk) who is displaying serious WP:OWN on Historical inheritance systems. When I came first across the page, my intention was to try to fix the overlinking but after attempting to read through some of it and having read other peoples concerns on the talk page I decided that the best thing to do was to remove some of the excessive detail. I fully explained what I was doing on the talk page and no one has objected there. After my initial removal of the large list of names, most of what I did was basic copy editing for grammar, as well as filling/tidying some references. Ansegam has since reverted every edit made to the page since before my first edit [10] with no edit summary and no comment on the talk page. I feel that my edits are an improvement to the page and a step towards addressing some of the major problems that have been highlighted by other editors. I reverted Ansegams edit and left a note on their talk page [11]. Ansegams has now reverted again to the original version [12] and responded to my note on their talk page by calling my [13] "Mentally challenged" and saying "people like [me] destroy the world by making everything "user-friendly", thus destroying culture and wisdom and turning all people into fools who can hardy think and learn". They have also claimed my edits where vandalism and stated that they will superimpose their version if I try to make any more edits.

I would really like to see the article improved, no matter who is the one to do it. I understand thet Ansegram has put a lot of time into it but that kind of excessive detail does not belong here and their behaviour is unacceptable. I see no point in attempting to continue a dialogue with them if they are just going to attack me and threaten to block all attempts I make to improve the page. I would like an administrator to have a look at the situation and take any action they think if necessary. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a serious problem, and I commented at the user's talk. There are three related articles with excessive details: Historical inheritance systems and Systems of inheritance among various peoples and Systems of social stratification. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Much of it reads more like a research thesis than an encyclopaedic entry. Needs serious cleanup. NQ (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Found this - some context NQ (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that AfD sheds light, NQ. The attitude is a greater problem than the edit warring, certainly, but they are edit warring, so, somewhat for form's sake, I've also warned them about that. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

I just blocked Ansegam for disruptive editing after yet another revert. He was warned three times in the past 24 hours. Last warning was by NQ just over two hours ago after which Ansegam reverted another edit. He has been blocked for one week. Bgwhite (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User effecting major category changes for biographies

Not sure how things work these days (I'm a 7-year admin but have effectively been on wikibreak for 2) but Hoops gza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing all non-hidden categories from a whole tonne of biographical categories such as Category:Barack Obama, Category:Winston Churchill and Category:C. S. Lewis to name but a few. He has been challenged about this on his talk page but has kept going. This appears to go against the entire spirit of Wikipedia:CATEGORY#Category_tree_organization, which views categories as a tree of related hierarchical entries rather than a series of amorphous, unconnected ones. Can someone with more recent understanding of goings-on in that field have a look and see if action is required to fix the problem? Orderinchaos 03:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the person who "challenged" me on it came to understand the logic. You'd see that if you had actually read my talk page. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the user who had added these categories to categories named after people (apparently only in the field of British writers) was User:Dimadick, so I am more or less reverting his changes. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic of removing categories from categories - that end up only having hidden categories. That flies in the face of over 5 years working with categories on wikipedia. Interestingly user dimadick has not been in the current conversation or invited or notified. There is no sign of a conversation seeking others opinions, and when I challenged the issue the links in my opinion show no sign of conversation amongst other editors.

The stance of removing the category from T.E. Lawrence category (where I first noticed this issue) - leaving it with no connection to the main part of wikipedia's categpry structure seems from my perspective be a mis-reading of what categories are about. satusuro 03:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoops gza claims that Satusoru "came to understand the logic", but here he clearly indicates that he doesn't agree with that logic. The idea is probably some very strict interpretation of categories, where David Irving is a "20th-century historian", but Category:David Irving is not a "20th-century historian"[14], because a category can never be a historian, or because that category contains things which are not a historian (I've seen either argument used in such discussions). This treats categories are very strict trees, and not the "clouds" most people use them for, collections of related articles. I've reverted his changes per WP:BRD. Fram (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That still does not resolve Hoops attitude to interpretation, and the incapacity of the category policies to deal with such an interpretation. Surely removing any categories for any reason - so that a category is no longer in a category that is visible and part of the larger tree - is wrong? I fail to see how a category item can exist that do not connect with anything that is part of the larger tree. Also before responding to this note orderinchaos's comment at hoops talk page - what you're doing actually flies in the face of a category system (a category system is a tree rather than a bunch of isolated units - and a hidden category is a meta-structure, not a structure) gives a clue to solve the issue - there should be something in category policy and procedures where such a narrow interpretation is not possible - on the basis that by isolating the categories as was done is seen as a fundamental error of interpretation. Frams comment about the categories in question as 'clouds' rather than strict interpretation by hoops - suggests a way forward and needs to be discussed somewhere where category policy and procedure needs to verify the issue arrived at by consensus, and with proper deliberation. satusuro 09:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Fram has said here, I think that Hoops gza's interpretation is certainly a novel one that runs counter to long-established practice, and one that I think finds little support in the relevant guideline. To add to that, I'd like to expand that this sort of mass change is the sort of thing that requires consensus, and the right thing to do if someone raises a concern is to stop and discuss before proceeding further. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

You cannot have non-hidden categories as parent categories of categories named after people. The Yalta Conference is not a 20th-century British writer (Winston Churchill), and Helen M. Roberts is not a President of the United States (Barack Obama). You guys apparently do not understand why we have the hidden categories in the first place. - Hoops gza (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry your argument doesnt make sense Winston Churchill should be in both categories British writer and Yalta Conference as well as other WWI & WWII related ones, UK political, Boar War, etc. As there are multiple article relating to WC there should be a WC category for them which should then be in bio tree of categories, not as you have been doing in removing all categories and saying hidden cats are all thats necessary, when the hidden cats arent part of the article structure they are solely for WP maintance tasks. Gnangarra 15:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, that's not what he means. One of the categories on the article Yalta Conference is "Winston Churchill". By adding the cat "Winston Churchill" to the cat "Nobel Prize winners" (or whatever cat), you bring indirectly the article Yalta Conference into the "Nobel Prize winners" category tree, which is incorrect if you believe that category trees should be strictly linear, i.e. every article should be a direct member of not only the parent cats but also the grandparent cats and so on. In reality, this strict system isn't followed anywhere and the cat tree is more a cloud of related articles, which means that e.g. Canada's Worst Driver (season 1) is a greatgrandchild of Category:Academic disciplines, even though it isn't an academic discipline strictly speaking... Fram (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoops, you need to stop this as it's a rather dramatic change. I suggest ceasing all such removals of eponymous categories, and bringing the discussion to WP:COP to discuss how and in what way eponymous categories for individuals should be categorized. There aren't obvious answers and there are good arguments on both sides, and to be fair it is currently inconsistent, but nonetheless the removals should stop and a clear consensus arrived at before additional damage is done.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoops is a good guy who means well, but there are some fundamental misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy at work here. Hoops has been the subject of several older ANI threads (1, 2), and all of them concluded that this is a case of WP:COMPETENT and not an editor trying to harm the project. As was suggested then, and may be suggested again, perhaps a mandatory mentor or oversight admin is needed here. Hoops has had some major problems with copyrights on images, OR in articles, and (as seen here) radical articles moves and category creations. I think he needs help not sanction and support not censure. -OberRanks (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we really need to knock this on the head. The contents of Category:Wikipedia categories named after American politicians are for mainspace, encyclopaedic usage. Hidden categories are for administration or non-mainspace purposes – none of these categories have this aim. The obvious solution is to have the eponymous biographical categories sit in relevant mainspace categories (like we have at Category:Presidents of the United States). The whole "Wikipedia categories named after..." structure has no viable basis as sole parents of these categories because of the combination that (a) eponymous categories are actually main content categories, and (b) "Wikipedia category" is not a defining characteristic of real topics. That was part of the reason for my original suggestion that these be flagged as "Wikipedia categories" so we can treat them for what they actually are – not a part of the mainspace category structure. SFB 18:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Fram's remark (Churchill & Yalta, above) explains User:Hoops gza's thinking, and I find it, while contrary to practice, quite logical. It is also supported by WP:SUBCAT; e.g., following the principles there, the categories re-added to Category:Friedrich Hayek in this edit ought to be removed from Friedrich Hayek – which is absurd, thus justifying their removal from the eponymous category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I read those principles quite differently, they seem to say that it is perfectly allright that an article and its eponymous cat share some of their categories: "Eponymous categories typically take on a selection of the categories which are present in their corresponding articles.". It also says "[...]by convention, many categories do contain their articles' eponymous categories as subcategories, even though they are not "true" subcategories." So it seems that the removals by Hoops gza go against established, accepted convention and apply a very strict reading of the cat rules instead. Fram (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the root of this discussion is that the guideline on how to categorise an article with an eponymous category is lacking. It's partially the same problem I raised two years ago. Only one reason is given for how one would choose (or not choose) to categorise an article with an eponymous category ("to prevent a loop") and that statement isn't obviously supported by the current arrangement on British Islands. Guidelines should make their purpose clear, not simply advise without context. The benefits of excluding an article from parents of its eponymous category are not always obvious. For example, what is the benefit to the reader of excluding the nation articles from Category:Archaeology by country? Is depriving the reader of viewing all the top level national archaeology pages at a single venue an intentional result? The underlying reasons for this guideline should be discussed further at the Categorisation talk page. SFB 17:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: User:Beyond My Ken - request for prompt intervention

User:Beyond My Ken needs an intervention (and time out). Pronto! Would an appropriate third party please attend to this promptly?

BMK is engaging in disruptive behavior (having progressed from inappropriately reverting my edits pointing out unreferenced content in the Bryant Park article to instigating edit war-like behavior), and is behaving uncivilly, including the use of direct rudness (including multiple descriptions under 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d, e.g., extreme profanity and personal attacks.) I cannot assume good faith, given the escalating and persistent nature of BMK's behavior, and in light of the fact that BMK's user talk page reflects a history of similar interactions with other Wikipedians in response to their complaints about the propriety of BMK's edits or reversions of their edits.

To demonstrate what I'm referring to and for your convenience, I've included below:

• a copy of BMK's and my interactions from the relevant section of my user talk page (content pasted below)
• a link to Bryant Park: Revision history (May 31 - June 2, 2014), which documents the BMK's and my history of edits
• a link to User talk:Beyond My Ken, which reflects a history of contentious interactions with Wikipedians, including uncivil remarks and complaints about BMK's editing practices

Here is the relevant thread of interactions from User talk:Froid#Don't tag..., opened by BMK:

Copied and pasted thread from Froid's user talk page

Don't tag... ...fix it. Drive-by tagging simply leaves the work for other people to do, it's much more collegial (and efficient) if you actually fix the problem instead. BMK (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC) There's no prohibition against noting cn's and unreferenced articles, pages, and sections. Moreover, both noting the need for references and contributing said references contribute to improving Wikipedia. Sometimes I do fix the problem (which cleans up work the original contributor left undone); at other times while reading an article that I see needs citations or better references, I indicate that need, but I may be focused on another agenda or have limited time to chase down references, in which cases it would be INEFFICIENT for me to switch gears to go on a reference hunt. In still other instances, I might be reading Wikipedia on a device (such as my phone or ereader) that permits me to note the need for references but is ill-equipped to search for and/or type them in. Whatever the case - whether I hunt down and fix a reference or not - it would be irresponsible to notice the need for references yet not indicate that finding. Froid (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Also, I see you have reverted my notes indicating the need for references. You appear to be unfamiliar with the rules for using references - one cannot merely state facts without providing supporting evidence. If you dislike providing such evidence, don't just remove the tags; let someone else provide such support. And please read one or more of the following guides for citing references, found at such links as these: Wikipedia:Citation_needed Template:Unreferenced_section https://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+cite+references&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb I'm going to replace my good faith and well-founded edits. Let's not get into an edit war; if you dislike my notations, then please call in a mediator. Froid (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I've requested input from a third party to help resolve this: see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bryant_Park. Froid (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Yeah, 9 years here and 145K+ edits means that I'm "unfamiliar" with referencing. Stop being so fucking lazy and fix a problem when you see it. And stop tagging "the sky is blue" facts. BMK (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I've expanded my request for intervention (regarding your reactions to my tags pointing out unreferenced and underreferenced content) to now also include attention to your disruptive and uncivil (category 1a 1b, 1c, and 1d) behavior. As per Wikipedia guidelines, I'll tag your user talk page accordingly. Froid (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I see no need for admin action here. BMK said "fucking", and he complained about Froid tagging a page rather than being bold and fixing things himself. BMK is obviously frustrated... but sanctions aren't going to address the underlying issue, nor is escalating things to the dramaboard as soon as one party in a dispute gets a little angry. Step back, take a sip of water, and maybe a nap, then come back to this and see if this is really something that requires immediate administrator attention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• BMK needs to be more civil in his interactions (telling someone to stop being "fucking lazy" is unacceptable) but the case is not severe enough to merit admin attention.I agree with Mendaliv, people need to calm down and talk it out rather than posting on ANI. Also in the future, please refrain from posting the entire discussion - a link will suffice. —Dark 08:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I collapsed the copied/pasted thread to keep from confusing people; when I first saw this thread I thought there had already been some responses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have never run across a editor that is so crass, rude, offensive and demining since I started editing here, then Beyond My Ken. I feel he has lost touch with the fact that this is a public site and his interactions become a part of the history of each article, potentially diminishing the value of it, should a detailed review be conducted of the history. He has used profanity upon me in the past, and from what I see seems to have the need to belittle other users in a manner that most of the time results in that user never returning. I have seen it more then once here and have tried to redirect those user into a educational tool (The Wikipedia Adventure) to learn, yet it seems to me that BMK's prior bashing and verbal abuse and in short order simply drives them away, this is already a continued pattern of unsavory interactions with the community, and if left unchecked will without question result in the continued pattern of driving away new editors that often simply do not understand the policies yet if provided some insight and guidance could become productive members of Wikipedia. While some of his edits might have value and conform to policy, is it worth it if some poor editors first encounter is with this user, he will continue to drive away new users if not dealt with. talk→ WPPilot  09:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Diffs or it didn't happen. Please point to some users he has driven away. Since you claim he does this on a regular basis it should be easy to compile a list.--Atlan (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Even from the viewpoint of a user who has frequently been in conflict with Beyond My Ken, I don't think it will be easy to compile such a list. He may come across as rough at times (and sometimes get into edit wars due to wiki markup). However, there's really no point in complaints over minor things (like this thread), where the only admin action needed is to tell BMK that cursing is a no-no. Epicgenius (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      • "wppilot" is a bit of a crank, I wouldn't take that claim seriously. Had a bit of a run-in over his direct lifting of text without attribution from a source (detailed here last month, and the defense didn't match the reality at all. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I didn't take the claim seriously. In fact I find it ridiculous and there's no way he can back it up. But that's the point. He shouldn't make baseless accusations. Those are worse than BMK's rudeness.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A specious complaint, with no action required imho, except a warning boomerang. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User Tarc's comments are incorrect, and that user is a loon, IMHO. He referred to a edit that I made that was not rephrased enough for him. [[15]] is an example and I have noticed others, BMK enjoys getting under peoples skin, over time, even calling me a asshole in the past. I have suggested to BMK that he tone down his belligerent rhetoric and offer assistance to the new users [16] but his weasel worded edit summary's and the whack a mole mentality seems to continue. @Atlan simply review the history of BMK's edits its public. It is funny that Tarc has isolated 1 edit (out of the tens of thousands I have made) that he feels makes my contributions worthless, - what a joke, from a college student none the less, kids are funny! BMK is disruptive, like it or not. talk→ WPPilot  15:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to do the work for you and review BMK's edits. If you make an accusation, you have to back it up with evidence. Otherwise withdraw the accusation. Baseless accusations are disruptive, like it or not.--Atlan (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are three from the last 2 weeks alone

• User talk:Hudson11377
• User talk:78.35.244.159
• User talk:84.44.195.210

talk→ WPPilot  16:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well upon reviewing the matter at Hudson11377's talk page, I find that editor being warned by BMK about edit-warring at Grand Central Terminal. Apparently Hudson wanted to change the infobox image but several other editors reverted that change, requesting that a discussion be opened at the talk page to gain consensus. I see nothing untowards regarding BMK's posts to Hudson's talk page, and in fact see another editor warning Hudson about making baseless claims of harassment. Do we need to investigate your next 2 links to the IP editors' talk pages, or are we going to find more of the same? Which is to say, are we going to find nothing of substance to support your allegation? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure what evidence you think you are presenting. BMK has made no posts on the talk pages of the two IP's. On H's talk page this section User talk:Hudson11377#You really don.27t seem to understand... contains reasoned responses to someone about image use. Then this section User talk:Hudson11377#This is your only warning has not one but two other editors backing up BMK's request. As there is no action for an admin to take based on these you might want to ignore BMK and go and edit some articles. MarnetteD | Talk 16:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BMK's efforts are more coy & are often done in the edit summary. My point is simple Meta:Don't be unpleasant, sums it up really well. @MarnetteD, great idea, ciao! talk→ WPPilot  16:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@WPPilot: So you have an editing dispute with BMK. Big deal, I disagree with his edits too sometimes, but I don't whine about it to the admin's noticeboard, because it's not worth pursuing. Point is, almost every editor replying on this thread is telling you to stop your accusations, unless you have substantiative evidence of his behavior. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WPPilot has a history of making unfounded accusations, assuming bad faith about other editors, unnecessarily escalating conflicts, and taking simple criticisms as personal insults. During the last discussion I had with him, in April of this year, I made it necessary to point out this history to him. Which led him to withdraw from the discussion, claiming that it was "sailing season". You can see it here in the COI noticeboard archives.

It's ironic that WPPilot claims that BMK has driven editors away from Wikipedia, because WPPilot drove Hijiri88 from Wikipedia after a conflict that WPPilot again escalated unnecessarily. In another incident WPPilot also threatened legal action against BMK, and accused BMK and another editor of being sockpuppets only because they both disagreed with him. (Again this is all explained at the COI noticeboard archive.) I've warned WPPilot that his behavior is unacceptable, he has a pattern of disruptive editing and when called out on it will usually put on a pacific face and withdraw prior to action being taken against him (which I suspect is how he has avoided a block for 4+ years).

I've tried to guide him, tried to stick up for him (somewhat) because he has made some positive contributions to the project over the years, but frankly I'm tired of his unending pattern. He has shown up at noticeboards multiple times, usually in a thread started by him, to vilify whoever he is in a content dispute with at the time. He has never changed and I doubt he will. I've pretty much given up on him at this point. -- Atama頭 19:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a thread about another editor, not about me. I am sorry I gave my opinion, but I am entitled to one. My point was to assert that civility should be a given, not a gift and that perhaps a new editor would be better served if that editor was dealt with in a manner that is more constructive. As this has turned into another attack upon me, I withdraw my opinion and observations, as posted but do still feel strongly that civility/or acceptance of the lack of it, is not in the spirit of this site.

Wikipedia can be confusing to a new user and IMHO if people were more helpful, as opposed to the rapid manner that some users seem to target, that it might be better. @Atama, your wrong, and perhaps should have just let it go, but the fact is I contribute things of value here. I have received many barnstars as well as been recognized as a contributor of a number of featured pictures. My comments were designed to do nothing other then to allow others the chance, to do the same. I am sorry that you feel I need to change. talk→ WPPilot  20:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's called WP:BOOMERANG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

...And as predicted, when called out on his own actions, WPPilot withdraws with calls for peace and tranquility. This happens every time. -- Atama頭 20:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, WPPilot also mentions non-sequiturs when confronted—detracting from the conversation at hand—saying that he made many good contributions, for example. Epicgenius (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I agree that civility should be a given rather than gift, it shouldn't be subject to a suicide pact; lapses should not be grounds for throwing the book at an editor in otherwise good standing. More importantly—and this goes to general issues with ANI—we should not let civility breaches serve (whether intentionally or incidentally) as leverage to forcibly resolve a content dispute in a particular way. For better or worse, Wikipedia is not a court of law; we need to take great care in acting on procedural grounds when the outcome would have substantive effects if we want to maintain such a stance. In short, I believe the best option if there is a serious enough pattern of incivility, is for an uninvolved third party to kick off a RfC/U. Where there's an ongoing underlying content dispute, I don't think ANI should take action in any but the most obvious situations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Useful advice. WPPilot, here's a helpful comment for you. You won't get anywhere on any discussion board without providing diffs and links for the conduct you complain of. The links in your original post are useless; you don't need to link the admins to our best-known policies, you need to link them to examples of what you're talking about. Also, don't link to an entire user talkpage. See the help page Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to proceed. It tells you step by step, it's not hard, and then you won't have to paste in whole chunks of text (which nobody wants to see); just link to it. (P.S. I also agree there's no admin action needed here.) Bishonen | talk 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

Little help

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

---

Hi people, I would like your help in this rather confusing issue. Telangana is a new state of India which came into existence today seceding from Andhra Pradesh. Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh is a city actually located in Telangana. Now that the state is divided, the article must be renamed to Nizamabad, Telangana..But a patriot happily copy pasted all the content from Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh and made a new article at Nizamabad,Telangana which doesn't have the previous edit history. Since we always follow this naming convention of having a space after the comma, I hereby request you to

• Delete Nizamabad, Telangana
• Move Nizamabad,Telangana to Nizamabad, Telangana...

That's it folks...thanks in advance ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 11:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Support, I have requested move at admin page, but don;t know who copied it.--Vin09 (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just made a WP:RM request, filed as technically uncontroversial. Epicgenius (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Presumably there are some other articles about nearby places where similar changes need to be made?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Raashid Alvi

Three new SPAs and two slightly older accounts have been making highly promotional edits, and assuming ownership of the Raashid Alvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page. Despite attempts to point out policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:COI, Wikipedia:Image use policy (specifically WP:Gallery), WP:LINKFARM and WP:INDICSCRIPT they are determined to have the article exactly their way, and totally unwilling to discuss any aspect.

Raashid Alvi's facebook page [17] which states "This Page is Managed by the Die Hard Fans of Raashid Alvi Saheb" also states:- Website - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raashid_Alvi
I suspect it is the same "Die Hard Fans" who are trying to control the Wikipedia page that they are directing their facebook readers to

Several of the SPAs are rather suspicious, in both their timing, often editing only minutes apart, taking it in turns to revert, and their detailed knowledge of Wikipedia:-

Iffatalvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted an image licensing tag with their second edit, and awarded a barnstar with their 16th edit

Nazhatafroz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted an image licensing tag with their fourth edit

Abrahamkhan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted a connected contributor template with their third edit, deleted an image licensing tag with their fourth edit and made a request for page protection with their fifth edit

Of the more experienced editors Hamdirfan987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started his editing career with a very similar dispute, over edits contrary to policy, at Khalid Alvi and has since uploaded over 100 images of Raashid Alvi – so appears to have a very close connection. Despite only making 318 edits in the last 12 months, he has also awarded himself a Master Editor service award (42,000 edits in 6 years)

Shakeeluddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a wider editing history, but has proved determined to maintain the link-farm.

In an attempt to resolve this, User:KDS4444 opened Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Raashid Alvi this morning, but User:TransporterMan has advised that – “conflict of interest, sockpuppetry, perhaps repeated violation of policy - are conduct matters which will not be addressed by the Mediation Committee and, if action is desired upon them, ought to be referred to the proper conduct forum.” –

If this is not the right place to bring this up, could you please direct me to “the proper conduct forum” – Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest can be addressed at WP:COIN. But I think far more serious is the sockpuppetry allegation. If you can paint a picture using diffs then start a case at WP:SPI and an investigation can take place. -- Atama頭 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

An SPI was raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamdirfan987 and I have protected the page. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a file on the article that has some questionable licensing claims. It was flagged but several of the users above have removed them. The file is a segment from a TV show and the original uploaded says this is allowed. Would someone familiar with copyright / permissions in India take a gander? To be honest, I doubt it adds much to the article and the file can probably be removed the article and deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: SPI results posted.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked all identified editors indefinitely. The CU-confirmed sockpuppets were blocked without much need for consideration, but the master (Hamdirfan987) took a bit more thought. Given the editor's clean block log, I wanted to see what they had done before deciding on a block duration. What I saw was a coordinated effort of deception using these sockpuppets, in an attempt to create the impression of support for Khalid Alvi (in what is alleged above to be a conflict of interest). There are also copyright violation allegations, and what just really rubbed me the wrong way was his awarding of barnstars to himself from his socks. That just showed me that this editor's intentions went far beyond an ignorance of policy. -- Atama頭 22:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

---

In a span of a few minutes 200.120.158.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has managed to call me a prick, a twat, and a piece of shit. I had previously warned him not to be uncivil in his edit summaries, a tosser. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's no good. Calidum, I'd suggest you use edit summaries when reverting. It's not like you were reverting vandalism when, for instance, you restored an unsourced (though probably true) assertion about what an article subject is best known for. Anyway, given this editor has received an only warning for NPA in the last 24 hours and persisted in making personal attacks (as well as edit warring warnings, which seem to have been disregarded), a short block is probably appropriate to prevent further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Block away. I could not care less. Personally I consider that stalking someone's edits, reverting repeatedly without giving a reason, and going out of one's way to be obnoxious and provocative is a much more damaging thing than responding angrily to such behaviour. If the insulting behaviour of reverting without having the courtesy to explain why resulted in editors getting blocked, this place would improve rather dramatically. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, KOH. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

====He's back====

See more personal attacks below. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

IP block not in accord with Wikipedia guidelines

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

---

IP address 76.171.127.128 blocked by Bearian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after a talk page warning was deleted (re. an edit made to another page). Per Wikipedia guidelines, The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. Block should be removed. Meteoritekid (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Two things:

1. This does indeed seem like an unnecessary block, so some explanation by Bearian is welcome to understand this (error? socking? something else?)

2. May I ask what your interest is in an IP block made ten days ago? And why you posted the notification at User talk:Bearian/RfaPoll, a page which didn't exist and which had no incoming links? Fram (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Semi-private computer/IP, sockpuppetry is impossible. This may not mean much coming from a complainant, but it is true.

2. Bearian enacted a ~30 day block on the IP, in effect until the ~23rd of June. If unwarranted blocks are being made by an administrator, s/he should be informed of the issue. I apologize; I tried to link to the userpage, but apparently used the wrong {{ prefix. I am not well-versed in these kinds of details; I think it is now fixed. Meteoritekid (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The block doesn't make sense, 11 days after the IP's last edit. I think maybe Bearian meant to block a different IP but made a mistake. Like you say, Bearian should be informed of the issue, but instead you chose to bypass him and run to ANI. Why didn't you just ask about it on his talk page? Why did you create User talk:Bearian/RfaPoll? Why did you remove the block notice from the IP's page? Your actions make very little sense.--Atlan (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not a regular on Wikipedia and am not familiar with most policies beyond looking into this issue. I have never been to this page before. I googled how to deal with unwarranted blocks and was led here. It seemed more likely to be productive than hitting up the person who enacted the block itself, assuming that they knew what they were doing. I deleted the block notice in the hope of removing the block. That apparently doesn't work. If you think this would be best dealt with by contacting the user, I'll go ahead and try that. Meteoritekid (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I created a page User talk:Bearian/RfaPoll if it exists; I thought I mistakenly linked to it here instead of his user profile. Genuinely confused if I am the reason for that page's existence, unless it has to do with the statement at the top of this page: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so." (?) Meteoritekid (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Regular or not, if you found the words that say you have to notify them about the ANI filing, then you cannot miss the words "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't want to 'file a grievance against someone' so much as get the IP unblocked. Per google, this seemed the place to come. Looking over the other entries here, the post does not seem out of place, but I have noted your comments and will not come here again if it can be avoided. Meteoritekid (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the {{unblock}} template you added to the IP's talk page, as that is for use by the blocked editor - the correct way for a third party to enquire, as you have now done, is to first ask the blocking admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Samsamcat

The user repeatedly re-adds non-free media to their user page. Werieth (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did running here replace asking the editor on their talk page? Resolute 13:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the users history of abusive behavior, I dont want to deal with the BS. I know the user will ignore anything that I post. Im just cutting to the chase. Werieth (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably because that user has a very poor attitude to anyone doing that, i.e. [18]. I'll issue a warning (though it'll no doubt be removed with some abuse) and then they have no excuse to do it again. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I know his history, but even so. I've just explained to him the reasoning, we'll see if he accepts it. Resolute 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I was just working out how best to easily explain the difference between "permission" and "free license" :) Thanks. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

NP. Hopefully this will resolve this concern. Resolute 13:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• user blanks warning, vandalizes my user page, re-adds media, and then tells me to Go fuck yourself. while vandalizing my user page again. Werieth (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User has since left a message stating he's leaving the project, so the problem may be resolving itself. —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not the first time, alas. Resolute 18:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Shashini12311

Shashini12311 (talk · contribs) and their sockpuppets (Shashini123 (talk · contribs) and 61.245.172.23 (talk · contribs)) have repeatedly been adding content in the lede saying that Canadian Tamil Congress is a terrorist entity, usually the first sentence of the lede. The have added the same information to a number of other articles as well. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and they have been warned several times on their talk page by myself and another editor. They have ignored the warnings.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a note, it probably would have been good to notify the other two users even though you suspect that they are socks. G S Palmer (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on the other cases, but I don't see that the Canadian Tamil Congress article example has been handled well. Yes, the wording was misleading as it was a listing by the Sri Lankan government but the wording concentrated on the UN resolution the listing was said by the government to be under. And yes, it probably doesn't belong in the LEDE. And yes it needs a secondary source, preferably multiple.

But the listing of an organisation as a financier of terrorism by any government, no matter how questionable that listing may be according to others, surely belongs in the article. And while it may technically be the responsibility of people trying to add information to get the sourcing, wording and position right, continually reverting because it's wrong surely helps no one. In some cases even if not here, it may even stop the edit war.

I would note that the wording used here [19] is almost fair. It's still in the LEDE, but far down enough that it's a more minor issue which really should have been corrected rather than reverted. It also lacked a secondary source which is unfortunate, but does anyone really think no secondary source noticed/commented on such a controversial listing? (I definitely didn't and found a secondary source in 30 seconds.)

To be fair, the reversion came here [20] after the claim had been added for a second time, so there may have been some confusion, but User:70.29.181.53 who modified and moved the claim was clearly trying to fix the problem and improve the article, so they deserved to be helped not lumped in with the other editor. (The fact that the other editor added the claim a second time when it was already in the same paragraph in the LEDE suggests to me they weren't going to stop hence why I was careful with my wording earlier.)

In other words, rather than simply looking at bad edits as something to be reverted, people should remember to work out if there's actually something there which definitely should be in the article since the goal should always be to improve wikipedia. Particularly in a case like this where the addition is small, it's surely easy to see that there is actually something there that does belong in the article.

P.S. Despite being a strong defender of BLP, I would also object to any universal application of BLP to this article. Obviously people are involved in this organisation, as they are in any organisation, but it's large enough that issues which affect the organisation can't be said to directly affect individuals. Heck the only people currently named in the article (discounting sources) are a judge, a person the CTC sued and someone they gave an award to. This doesn't of course mean we shouldn't get things right, but we also shouldn't be applying the high standards which BLP rightly requires to large organisations, otherwise we might as just as well apply them to everything. (Of course BLP can still apply to stuff in the article. For example clearly there are possible BLP issues for anyone directly named in the article and we should make sure the stuff about them is correct and that it's worth mentioning them in the article.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I know this isn't really a ANI issue, but is there any general coverage about the recent listings. Not necessarily an article specific to the listings, perhaps coverage in a more general one like 'List of organisations banned by the Government of Sri Lanka'? It seems to me there's great coverage of the listings [21] but because so many organisations were listed at one time and many of the listings are controversial there often isn't specific discussion or even mention of the actual organisation. It may help to have a general article for coverage of the listings where such issues can be covered (probably linked as a 'main article' in the specific organisation articles where the listing is mentioned). Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This ANI notice isn't about the validity of mentioning the "ban", merely the actions of Shashini12311 which are a violation of core content policies. The fact that Shashini12311 has reinserted the same content even after your edits is evidence that they are here to make a point. Unless Shashini12311 is dealt with they are going to continue with their POV edits and waste other editors' time. Five editors have already waster their time on Shashini12311.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jgstokes is CANVASSing AfDs

Jgstokes (talk · contribs)

User:Jgstokes is very active in the creation and editing of LDS-related articles. However, some of the biographical articles on LDS figures lack sourcing independent of websites and publications independent of the LDS church. One such article was Kevin S. Hamilton, which was redirected after a weeks-long AfD discussion here. He canvassed that AfD by leaving messages here, here, here and here. The messages were not neutrally-worded, and were targeted toward audiences likely to agree with his point of view on LDS articles. When he did this, I warned him here that canvassing AfDs was unacceptable. After an unsourced article on a second-tier LDS official was closed as delete, I nominated two more of them for deletion here and here. After making votes that completely ignored AfD and arguments-to-avoid protocol, Jgstokes then proceeded to canvass those AfDs again here, here, here and here. As noted, revious attempts to inform him of policy have failed. Could somebody set him on the right track policywise, both in regards to not canvassing and vis-a-vis arguments to avoid? pbp 14:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

From your last list of diffs:

Hey, I thought you'd like to know that the articles about Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer have been nominated for deletion. I have made my case for keeping them and will leave it to the consensus to decide. If you'd care to comment, I'm sure your perspective, whatever it might be, would be welcome. Thanks for all your great work on Wikipedia!

Wording looks fairly neutral to me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

User:Tjmayerinsf

I'm actually not sure where to report this, but I figure that listing this here is a good first step.

Long story short, recently the article Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation was put up for deletion. The premise sounded familiar and a little searching showed that sure enough, the article was deleted/incubated previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disconnect (2013 film). The article was moved to the incubator (and later draftspace). However what I shortly noticed about Mobilize is that a few days after the AfD was closed, User:Tjmayerinsf re-created the article under Mobilize. This isn't the first time he's done something like this, as he previously did this with Tulip Time: The Rise and Fall of the Trio Lescano, which was deleted via Afd in 2008. He recreated it three times after the close of the AfD and never addressed the issues for its deletion. He also re-created the article for David Chiu (attorney) several times despite it getting deleted for copyvio. The article for Chiu now reflects him as a politician and any concerns brought up in previous versions have been addressed, but not really by Tjmayerinsf. I'm going to try to see if I can find sources for Tulip Time before nominating it for a speedy, but the problem here is that we've blocked people for this sort of behavior and Tjmayerinsf has been editing since 2006. There's no reason why he shouldn't know the rules for notability and that re-creating articles after they're repeatedly deleted can be seen as disruptive. I see where he was warned for posting copyvio (that and promotional prose is a common deletion rationale for many articles he's edited) but not for reposting articles, but again- he's been editing since 2006 (about 8 years) and as such should have at least some knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines to know where this sort of editing behavior isn't kosher. If it was just the once or just the ones back in 2008 and so on it wouldn't bother me overly much, but Mobilize was created last year.

I figure it should be mentioned here, as this concerns me greatly because it makes me wonder how many articles he's written or edited that have issues with them that haven't been found yet. He's prolific and I hate to bring this to ANI, but this is the sort of thing that just isn't kosher and does need to be addressed. I've left him an official warning, but at some point this goes beyond "I wasn't warned, so I didn't know". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that a long standing user would know the process around AfD. Recreating articles under slightly different titles afer a consensus is reached to delete the original would suggest WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV issue

Is there something wrong with the administrator intervention against vandalism page? I've reported an IP who's been on a vandalism spree for the past hour (and they are still at it). And when I submitted the report, it appears that there is a backlog dating 1 June. Not sure if the admin's are aware, or if there is a tech fault. But I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Thanks. Wes Mᴥuse 15:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The backlog template is automatically set by the AIV bots. Could be that no admin is willing to involve himself/herself, or that they're not sure whether the IP needs to be blocked, since the edits don't appear to be straightforward, obvious vandalism. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. It isn't the backlog template though. There is a pending report on there dating 1 June. Wes Mᴥuse 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The template changes to backlog if there are five or more pending AIV requests, regardless of if they have been answered or not. Requests are removed manually if the user has not been blocked, and automatically if they have. Answered requests are left on there for an undetermined/arbitrary period of time, so the requester can see why action has not been taken. The 1 June request has since been answered. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request Neuroscience complaint be filed with possible reprimand of an editor

I want to file a complaint that began when I was not allow to post at two entries by a contributor or editor. To keep me from posting he has made serious allegations, including defamation of a scientist and notable person (who I cited as a reference source in various related entries) and who also has a Wikipedia entry. Additionally this editor has made false allegations of "copying" of this author by another, implying plagiarism (again falsely as I have checked the entries and the author cited the primary source, used quotation marks when appropriate, and there are absolutely no string of words that anyone could call "copying" or plagiarism). In fact I cited both authors as well as corrected false information in the second paragraph of the article. I was not allowed to post after that. The editor claiming that I was "promoting" an author and then began making a slate of of false accusations. The matter is serious and needs investigating to clear the author and reprimand the editor, who has put his territorial interest ahead of Wikipedia and has made serious but false and reckless allegations that can bring a lawsuit to Wikipedia. I'm not naming names because of the notice above about defamation. I attempted to go to "oversight," but the link was not working. There is a considerable paper trial at those entries, including the talk page of an administrator who became involved but ultimately has decided he does not want to get involved and advised that we come here. The information then is included in the Talk Page of History of psychosurgery and Talk Page of User talk:Randykitty under the subheadings: 9) "Assistance Required" and 12) "Do you remember this Edit?" I don't know if this is the correct place to post this information. Please advise and take action.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Notified Staug73 and Randykitty. LeBassRobespierre, Rk asked that you take this up with mediation, a third opinion or an RfC (I'll add to that dispute resolution). That's how we handle content disputes, and I concur with Rk that that's what's going on here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A certain user has stepped up their childish, vindictive nature

A certain user must think I'm an idiot and can't see what they are trying to do. They changed their tactics. They know very well that the "Results and schedule" box, separate from the other thing we've disputed over, has been unhidden each week to reveal what's underneath it, the next race. Isn't it funny how last week, when SOMEONE else unhid the FedEx 400 box, this certain user didn't say anything? But when I MYSELF unhide this week's race in the same fashion that the other user did last week, SUDDENLY the user in question has a problem with it? Also, isn't odd how they just NOW suddenly decided that they don't like the un-hiding of that box, when, after all these months, they NEVER had a problem with it? Seems fishy to me. Sounds like they know they've lost on the other thing, so they are now trying to stick it to me wherever they think they can, no matter how lame the reason. Let me ask, why last week did they NOT revert the OTHER editor who un-hid the box for the FedEx 400? It's because there's nothing there was wrong with it; the only thing wrong with it THIS time is the fact that it was ME who un-hid it. That's the vindictive nature of the person in question, and it's not fooling anyone.

This is the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man

This is what the box is meant to look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=prev&oldid=611353692 As you can see, that displays how the box indicates the upcoming race (which is a totally different section than the one being disputed a few weeks ago). This box has, by other editors as well as myself, been revealed each week using the un-hide feature in the editing process, to show the race valid for that week, and it's been done that way for quite some time. But, suddenly now, the user in question decided that they don't like it very much because they saw that this time it was ME who revealed it, and decided to use it as an opportunity to try to get under my skin. Why didn't the user in question revert it last week when it was some OTHER editor who un-hid the box? Funny how that works, isn't it? This is what it currently looks like, and as you can see, the box is missing now that the user in question hid it only for personally vindictive purposes, something they didn't do when it was another editor who made the same kind of edit last week that I made this week: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=next&oldid=611384932

And while I'm here, I may as well go ahead and let you know about another situation. Since clearly the user in question keeps an eye on what I do, they saw today an article for deletion conversation that I'm involved in, and decided to put their two cents in merely for the purpose of opposing me on it, again to try to stick it to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Brickyard_400

As you can see, all of it, the new tactics change to try to bother me, plus the butting into the deletion article conversation just to oppose me out of spite, has gotten to the point of nuttiness. I don't go around reverting other editors' edits out spite or for any other reason, I keep to myself. But the user in question not only does it, but also makes a habit out of it, even stooping to changing tactics when something else wasn't working for them. And who knows how many other users out there that they have done it too, especially the ones who maybe didn't take the time and effort to rightfully complain about it. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you please actually talk to the user you're in conflict with rather than coming to ANI straight off? This is about the fourth time in the last few weeks you have come here with the same issue (1st, 2nd, 3rd). Like we said before in those discussions, WP:DISCUSS with USM what their issue is and work it out between yourselves rather than coming to ANI every single time you think they're in the wrong. You're fighting about an infobox and the timing to reveal the results of a race not run yet, not actual article content. We're not under a WP:DEADLINE to have the edit show up or not until after the race, and does it really matter for an upcoming race? Also, anyone can comment on an AfD, and they only said they were going with article creation MO for arguing deletion, not some kind of vendetta. Someone interested in NASCAR racing and editing in the subject is going to comment in an NASCAR AfD; you can't get around that. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, I'd like to make a suggestion. Two, actually. First, read WP:TLDR: Nobody's going to be predisposed to listen to you if they think that you're ranting. Second, could you stop using URL's and use regular links instead? If you need to link to someone's contributions, it can be produced by typing [[Special:Contributions/Example]], which will render as Special:Contributions/Example. Thanks. G S Palmer (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said a few weeks ago, trying to communicate with them has proved fruitless, that's why I'm here. I don't come here because I like to. And anyway, when you have someone whose mission it is to maliciously target one single editor with new tactics because the old ones didn't work, there is no getting through to them anyway. Although in the past I tried. That person likes to leave messages on people's pages basically getting across the idea that they have the last say on everything, no matter how ridiculous. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Johnsmith2116? Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You have been told by multiple people (in fact, as I recall, by everyone other than you) that your earlier claims of being hounded/attacked/battled against were spurious and that you, not them, were the cause of the issue. Your continued claims that USM is being "vindictive" have crossed into personal attack territory - I would strongly suggest you strike this comment, especially, as it is a blatant and egrerious personal attack - consider this a warning that if you make any such further attacks you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, you need to review the WP:FIVEPILLARS, especially regarding assuming good faith. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are trying to "spite" you. Conflict happens on Wikipedia all of the time and the right response is to talk it out. As I think I suggested earlier, go to WikiProject NASCAR to hear the views of other editors if you feel like it is a him vs. you situation. It always helps to include other editors in the discussion if you are finding it difficult to communicate with a specific editor. But you have to try to talk it out and stop coming to AN/I over what is, essentially, a content dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:LaCenCt

Would any uninvolved admin check on this page please, user is transcluding other user's pages (including mine) on to their page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Have reported to WP:AIV as advised by the warning notice on thier page. Amortias (T)(C) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I delisted the AIV as it's not the normal vandal type and already being dealt with here. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone actually try to talk to them? They might have been trying to duplicate the "look" of a userpage they liked and ended up transcluding the whole thing inadvertently. I removed all that from the user and talk pages and left them a comment. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominally agree with FreeRangeFrog here; new users do weird things sometimes when they like how someone's userpage looks. It's really disconcerting when someone you don't even know does it, but it's something that should be handled via discussion. On the other hand, FreeRangeFrog's removal of the transclusions was reverted without comment. Given the attribution at the bottom of the page by LaCenCt, it seems pretty clear that the intent is to just copy the style of the page. If LaCenCt wants the format, we could just subst the userpage for him, then remove the admin templates or whatever. Anyway, Xaosflux, you might want to change that <includeonly> to be a bit friendlier than suggesting anybody who transcludes your userpage is a vandal (e.g., the kind of notice normal templates throw that should always be subst'd). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You might also try using <onlyinclude> if you really don't want your userpage to be transcluded. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• They're trolling. I've deleted and salted the page, and will block them the next troll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam:, I have no particular reason to doubt you, but it seemed fairly innocent to me. I've had someone copy my userpage before. The fact that the user didn't respond to queries about it is a bit annoying, but deleting and salting the userpage? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Except (1) Xaosflux has evidently had this problem before, since he created that header in 2006, and (2) Why Xaosflux's user page? No offence to Xaosflux of course (mine is worse) but it's not that fantastic a user page. It strains credulity that they innocently found that page and decided to use it as some kind of template. Combine that with reverting without explanation after it had been removed, and with their edits to Cluebot's page, and I'd say it's pretty clear they aren't innocently experimenting. If they want to experiment in their sandbox, that remains undeleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I have had the problem before, it used to be a more popular vandal/troll activity in the past. I claim no ownership of my userpage content, it is fairly bland; and encourage anyone to copy any aspect of it they would like (headers, clock, etc), however just transcluding it was a bit creepy. I haven't read up on community standards for this type of action lately, thus asking for someone else to look at it here. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I believe someone cut-and-pasted my talk page (with messages!) once. Again, it's a big fat "so-what" really, it's CCBYSA content, and I suppose with cut and paste they aren't attributing the unsigned bits, but I can't get excited about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
          
          • I've got to agree with Rich here. I don't see this as something qualifying for speedy deletion—I really don't buy that it's harassment (G10)... and to call it pure vandalism (G3) is too far a stretch in my view. I don't think the page should be restored, mind you, but I just don't see the point. Just remove the transclusion. If Xaosflux was having a problem with people transcluding his userpage, he could just use <onlyinclude> to ensure what was transcluded was something else. I agree the transcluding is really on the weird side of weird user conduct that I've seen... but it really does seem innocent enough to me. The solution is to either subst the userpage and remove any content that might deceive, or remove the transclusion entirely and notify the other user. I agree that transcluding another's userpage likely serves no legitimate purpose, and therefore should be reverted... but not to the point of deleting and salting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) I fail to see how this transclusion matters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC).
  
• Meh, you oughta see his contributions on the Spanish wiki. Either he's a troll or he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. Either way, he doesn't belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit and Ta-Nehisi Coates - request for topic ban

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

---

As of a half hour ago, User:Useitorloseit has made 310 edits to Wikipedia. The account has made only 33 edits to article space, 20 of them to a BLP article, Ta-Nehisi Coates. 19 of those 20 have been to insert disputed material about the juvenile arrest record of the subject of the article. With 310 edits, this user could have brought the article up to FA status, but instead the vast majority of those 310 edits have been to talk and project space, including multiple threads here and on WP:BLPN, arguing about this disputed material. Along the way this editor has been belligerent and accused other editors like myself and User:NorthBySouthBaranof of all manner of nonsense. It is clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and worse, has wasted the time of one or two dozen productive editors since February. This user should be topic banned this article and its talk page and can revisit this article and topic ban after he or she proves him or herself to be a productive Wikipedia editor and not an SPA. Enough is enough. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Enough is enough indeed. This editor's privileges should be constrained to anything but that BLP (at a minimum). Total time waster. Cwobeel (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread. [22] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban regarding all aspects of Ta-Nehisi Coates. Viewing all of Useitorloseit's contributions confirms that this is an SPA wanting to add negativity to a BLP. Their agenda was clearly stated in the first edit which has edit summary "added info about his criminal past". Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This issue involves disputes over changing consensus and the quality of arguments for deciding consensus. I request RfC be allowed to run its course, due to repeated prior attempts to block discussion.

Content: An explanation of the disputed content is inside collapsed box:

Collapsing for the moment to stop edit war, leave it alone for now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the content dispute: Ta-Nehisi Coates is a blogger for the Atlantic magazine who focuses on issues of African-Americans, race relations, crime, young black males, inner city schools, etc. (Reparations for slavery and Shooting of Trayvon Martin are two examples of issues where he has had an impact). He has written about his discipline issues in high school over the years, and I want to include a mention of that. The proposed edit is this: "Coates attended Baltimore Polytechnic Institute but was expelled twice for disciplinary violations and he graduated from Woodlawn High School."

The edit meets Wikipedia's content requirements: it is verifiable, based on the author's own repeated discussion of the incidents over the years. WP policy allows such self-referential sources. There is no original research: these links are written by the author, not me, and they are being used to support only one thing: the straight fact of the incidents, nothing else. Lastly, this is a neutral point of view: it doesn't obscure the existence of these incidents, nor does it emphasize them. I believe this edit should be added to the article.

Conduct: I definitely edit-warred in the beginning, but that is long past and I have addressed other concerns such as being an SPA here under "I don't edit Wikipedia often" [[23]]. Other users have abused the Noticeboard process to shut down debate: My first RfC was immediately deleted by an involved user, TheRedPenOfDoom, who then warned me on my Talk page. When I deleted [[24]] the warning, he reported me to the Obvious Vandalism [[25]] page. My edit was obviously not vandalism, and TheRedPenOfDoom deserves sanctions for misuse of the vandalism board to close down debate. The next edit [[26]] had 2-1 supporting, with 1 ambiguous. The 1 opposed, NorthBySouthBaranof, reverted it 3 times, then reported [[27]] me to the BLP board. The next edit [[28]] had a 3-3 split supporting/opposing. NorthBySouthBaranof talked about reverting to the last uncontroversial version due to no consensus [[29]], then IN HIS VERY NEXT POST, tried to have me topic banned [[30]]. He deserves sanctions for making false statements about the state of consensus at BLP & ANI noticeboards. There's more. When he reopened the 2nd RfC when it was closed minutes after I started it, he didn't include [[31]] the RfC tag, so it wouldn't attract other editors who might disagree with him. He harassed [[32]] or tried to prevent [33]] other editors who might support me from joining in. I am asking the RfC to be allowed to remain for 2 weeks to draw comment, then we can close it and I will accept consensus and move on. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What possible difference could the RFC make? You haven't taken no for an answer since February, and you've done it at the top of your lungs. Assuming the RFC does stay open, which I have zero objection to, why would we possibly believe that would be the end of it, since you've given no indication that you've ever been willing to drop the stick and move away from the dead horse. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Simple: because no discussion has ever been allowed to play out. Try me. Delete this topic ban, allow the RfC to stay for 2 weeks, and if I start again I'll support your topic ban. You don't have a clue about me and you've been wrong from the start. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There's been months and hundreds of edits of discussion already. You will apparently never be satisfied. I say leave the RFC open for two weeks and topic ban you. If you truly will be satisfied by the two week RFC, after all these months and hundreds of edits of complaining, then the topic ban will have no effect on you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've provided links on how many times debate has been disrupted by opposing editors. If you choose to ignore that, don't blame me. I stand by my request. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

References
References

Disagreement is not disruption. You've had ample opportunity to be heard. Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

One edit had 2-1 support; another had 3-3. So who says it was so clear-cut? Useitorloseit (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Ta-Nehisi Coates and all other BLPs, as well as 1RR on other pages as someone completely uninvolved, I had been considering leaving him a message about WP:Forum shopping after seeing him raise the issue repeatedly over the past week on different WP: pages I watch, but got the impression that would only get him to try and draw me into an article issue I'm completely apathetic toward. Clear WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC) -- EDIT: After further discussion with Useitorloseit (see below), I'm seeing severe WP:CIR, WP:TEND, and WP:NOTHERE issues with this editor, and do not think he should be near any BLP and should be restricted to 1RR on other pages to mitigate potential uncooperative behavior. This is if if we continue to let him edit at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Thomson, one editor said there was no consensus[[34]], then 20 minutes later claimed on ANI that consensus was clearly against me[[35]] and I should be topic-banned. You cannot work out consensus if people will openly lie like that and poison the well against you. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-read what NorthBySouthBaranof actually posted before a month of dealing with your arguing. He said that there was no consensus to include your addition, that your addition was controversial, and that the last non-controversial version did not have your addition. He never said what you said he said. There is no hypocrisy in what actions of his you've presented. Honestly, that you failed to get that from the post you linked to me (assuming you weren't hoping that I would just take your word for it) only reinforces my views on the matter. In fact, it leaves me worried. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I quote: "If you believe that there is no consensus, then we will have to revert back to a version before you began introducing the issue, removing any and all mention of the incident until such time as a consensus is further developed." He even suggested which edit to revert back to. Sounds like he was saying "we need to work it out", but then he suddenly went to ANI so he wouldn't have to bother. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And I quote: "there has never been a consensus developed that any mention of the incident belongs in the article". Also, what you're selectively quoting is, even not in the proper context, saying that your controversial addition to the article should not be included until and unless there is an actual consensus to include it. It does not preclude (but definitely includes) the possibility that a consensus to not include it would develop, as has happened. Consensus is not created, changed, reversed, or otherwise affected by one editor refusing to get the point or drop the stick and back away from the horse. A consensus has developed since then, and you are the only person who doesn't see that. And a month is not "suddenly," it is plenty of time to work plenty out. It just didn't work out the way you wanted. If you continue to fail to get this, I'm bumping my vote to a topic ban on all WP:BLPs and a WP:1RR restriction. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, "suddenly" referred to his posting on ANI 20 minutes after talking about reverting on the talk page. I never said it was a month. I will accept consensus; I just expect to be allowed to have an RfC without having it deleted for once. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Which ANI report? Because the link you've provided was for over a month ago, and this ANI report is from today. Doing your job for you and searching NorthBySouthBaranof's contributions to find out what you should have linked, I see that you've generally not gotten it through your skull that the work is DONE, and that your addition lost. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The link you say I "should have linked" is the same one I did link, in my post at 00:26 4 June. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The one you linked to at :28 after, this link, is from Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. It is not the other ANI report you kept talking about. You said that he went from Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates to ANI in the span of 20 minutes, and provided no evidence. You kept discussing some ANI report without clarifying that you were not talking about this one, but an earlier one. You could/should have linked to him filing the report as well as proof and clarification, and so that your claim that he went to ANI 20 minutes later (as if it's relevant) was proven, and so that people new to this conversation would not think that you're talking about this ANI report from a month later. Without that link, the only conclusion that was possible to draw was that you were talking about this ANI thread we're in now, instead of the one from earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I proved links and therefore evidence for both in my first reply to your comment, at 00:26 4 June. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

After double checking, I'm still seeing an irrelevant case of WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDHT on your part. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The editor is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia, merely to attempt to drag a living person through the mud through a unbroken obsession about a single minor incident. support topic ban . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per TRPoD. — goethean 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, and, believe it or not, support including the information. Here is the point. This is the article, by Coates himself. Clearly he doesn't see writing about details of his troubled history as a personal attack. And the reason for that is that it gives him credibility. Coates, as best I can tell from a quick skim (I don't think I'd ever heard of him before today) seems to be notable for writing and speaking to and about a young black audience that contains many of what we call "at risk youth". The fact that he had a tough childhood himself makes a big difference, if he mentions that it doesn't seem as if he's talking down to them from a pedestal, but that he has been there too. And that we write just how tough is important, it's not the "Frank Capra" overly idealistic tough kids with dirty faces that we sneer about; he assaulted a teacher, possibly twice, and got expelled from school for it. We really should write that in his article, and not because it makes him look bad, though it does - and not even because it makes him look good for overcoming it, though it does - but because it seems vitally relevant to the rest of his career and to the reason for his notability. --GRuban (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be possible to have a reasonable discussion concerning what material should be included after an SPA editor with a clear agenda is topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • If, as it seems here, the main reason to ban him is that he wants to include this one sentence, and we can have a reasonable discussion about including that one sentence, I don't think we need to ban him. After all, it's not as if he's vandalizing the article, he started an RfC. We've got noticeably ruder editors still editing constructively here. --GRuban (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • 1) the content is included and 2) Coates has described numerous OTHER events in his life that have had a far greater impact. The editor's single minded focus on bloating this single factor is a core issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • A reasonable case can be made for inclusion. The reason to ban him is not because of the sentence, but because that sentence is basically his only contribution to Wikipedia. The reason to ban him is that he's an SPA engaging in forum shopping, dead horse beating, and belligerent behavior. How much more time must we waste on a user who has made next to no positive contributions in four months and 310 edits? Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I unblocked Useitorloseit on 23 April after he'd been blocked for edit warring. The unblock included a one-month 1RR restriction to the Ta-Nehisi Coates article. He'd been sporadically active until 23 May; that day, he both removed the sanction notice on his talk page and archived Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. It's hard to interpret as anything other than an attempt to conceal the prior debate and have another go at getting the material included.

I haven't written him off as a user. However, I feel that his fixation with this topic is impeding his growth as an editor. Thus, the topic ban seems the best way to encourage him to grow as an editor and gain experience in the editing process without spending copious amounts of his time (and other users' time) on iterations of the same debate. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I take issue with the prevailing view on Wikipedia that the only way to be judged a legitimate user is to edit lots of articles. I am a low-volume editor who doesn't have an interest to contribute as often. But my contributions should be judged by their content, not my edit count. I've gotten enough support for my edit to show it's not so outrageous or biased. Did everyone forget this RfC is due to the 3-3 deadlock? Why doesn't that matter to anyone? All I want is ONE RfC that doesn't devolve into flame wars over blocks or speedy closes. That's the real reason my nonarticle edits are so high. Then I can rest knowing I had a chance to make my case and be heard on the content, not insinuations about me. The only fixation I have is becoming interested in the process of dispute resolution. It's not based on quality of argument; it's whoever will stay and revert. In the ensuing mess, quality of argument is just another contender. By the way, I archived that stuff to try to draw a line behind it and focus on content. Fat lot of good that did. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit, I know what it's like. I too am a part time editor who doesn't average 100 edits per day, nor get paid for them. Unfortunately, when editors who are very active decide they want to make mischief for others for seemingly no reason, and then we complain about it, it tends to fall on deaf ears. I noticed that an editor who has been trying to stick it to me from some time also reverted one of your edits on this very page a few hours ago. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not what anyone is saying at all. This has nothing to do with however many edits you made. An editor with 100,000,000 edits would be getting in trouble for your behavior (and would have probably just been indefinitely blocked by now because there would be absolutely no reason to give them near the benefit of the doubt you've been given). You have made a lot of edits in a short amount of time, but almost all of them have been focused on only one thing that almost everyone has told you to stop pushing. The issue is that you're a single purpose account that refuses to listen to acknowledge any consensus that isn't exactly what you want. There are some possibilities for good single purpose accounts (User:Giraffedata's project is an example), but your actions do not mark you as a beneficial SPA. That you refuse to get that no one condones your behavior for a reason and that you continue to lie to yourself (and others) about the situation makes me doubt you'll be of benefit to the site, even with a topic ban. I have seen plenty of editors blocked (not banned from a single article, but blocked from the whole site) for far fewer problems in much less time, so you should be grateful that every admin who has passed through here is open to the possibility that you'll grow up, get over your mistakes, and do something productive instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor (I have never edited the article in question or its talk page), I was alerted to this dispute by Useitorloseit's attempts at forum shopping. At that point, I read the talk page, and this page, and noticed that Ian.thomson had the same experience as me. I am inclined to say "well, dang": Useitorloseit's actions are so egregious that [at least] two entirely uninvolved editors have noticed and come here to say "yes, this user should be banned from this topic". This is a clear case of a single-purpose account that is not here to work collaboratively. -sche (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite topic ban regarding Ta-Nehisi Coates. This editor's first edit summary characterized the BLP subject as "criminal" based on a juvenile arrest without any evidence of a conviction. For four months, the editor has been completely obsessed with only a single thing - sustained, compulsive efforts to insert material about the subject's juvenile scrapes with the law into the article. Repeated pleas asking the editor to expand and improve other aspects of the biography, or to work on improving other articles, have been rebuffed or ignored. As this is an enormous project, there may well have been examples of worse SPA behavior. But this is pretty bad and I am convinced that this editor's behavior amply justifies an indefinite topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I reached out and offered to “talk it over” [[36]] with this user, but instead of working with me, he just demanded I accept his position [[37]] and then stopped replying. He previously lectured a supporter of the edit to “withdraw those words”, adding “I will be waiting.” [[38]] That is a clear case of failure to work toward consensus in good faith.

• Oppose This is a request that is opened precisely as an RfC is running its course! I've been randomly invited to contribute to the RfC, and tried to contribute, but through this nomination the whole process is being disregarded. Moreover, the substance of the dispute is laughably minor: It revolves around whether to include or not in a person's Wikipedia entry the fact that he had been expelled from high school! Cause for satire. -The Gnome (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The user in question is a single-purpose account who has no intention of contributing to the development of a better article about Ta-Nehisi Coates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Reply I want to make sure it's clear to the powers that be that there was a legitimate split over consensus, and that very few people actually joined in. My last 2 edits [[39]] [[40]], which were different, had a combined total of only 6 editors who commented, and they split 3-3. Aside from those 6 editors, NONE of the people in the current survey had EVER commented or even participated in the discussions, with the sole exception of Gamaliel (who started this ANI post and who once voted “Opposed – DEADHORSE” with no further comment[[41]]). Again, the idea that discussion has been clearcut is a fiction created by opposing editors. Consensus can only be worked out by good-faith discussion, not repeatedly posting on noticeboards and poisoning the well against people, as has been done here. Several of the survey votes are traceable to noticeboard watchers who’ve seen these complaints raised over and over and are voting based solely on that. I renew my request for the RfC to run its course – the article is untouched and there’s no harm being done. I also believe making false statements on ANI ought to have some consequences. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and 1RR. Useitorloseit is obviously a single-purpose account. And he's just breached 3RR right here on this very page, trying to remove Floquenbeam's description of the content under one of the hats further up this thread. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Block Request: User Ian.thomson and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Bad-faith request, asking for sanctions against editors because they were doing the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Update: I first requested intervention about editors reverting my own reply to an ANI discussion. The editor ian.thomson has gotten very combative and disruptive, starting a 3RR violation complaint about me and accusing me of "personal attacks" for labeling his reverts vandalism. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom has persisted in his reverts despite being asked not to. I am asking for a block for both of them for at least 1 day. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom keep editing my reply [[42]] [[43]] to the Topic Ban discussion listed several topics above this one. I believe I am entitled to write my own replies, without having people edit them against my will. Both editors oppose my edit and this amounts to nothing more than vandalism. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe this edit is what the OP is referring to. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, when you keep attempting to continue your smear of a living person by plastering the same content you have been overwhelmingly told REPEATEDLY in MULTIPLE FORUMS is not appropriate onto multiple pages; it will continue to be removed per our WP:BLP policies and your insistence on attempting to restore it merely reinforces the obvious: that you have an unhealthy obsession and must be topic banned to prevent further disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Note, OP has been reported for edit warring over the BLP violating material being inserted into the near-unanimous topic-ban discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's a smear or a legitimate edit is up to discussion to decide, not for you to just delete unilaterally. 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism by involved, opposed editors. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTVAND. And technically, we could go and revert more since it falls under WP:BLP. Meanwhile, the edit report against you stands since it is not vandalism according to site policies and guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OP is now making personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, let's see what an admin says. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- Does the Guinness Book of Records contain an entry for "most times dragged to ANI for utterly invalid reasons"? If so, TRPoD must surely hold it. Reyk _YO! 02:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Reyk just summed up my thoughts there, insofar as this is an "utterly invalid" ANI report, and frankly, I am tempted to boldly close it, but will wait to see if any other administrators or commentators view the situation differently. No admin action required, in my opinion. Go Phightins! 02:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Except maybe on Useitorloseit. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I would need to see a separate pile of evidence for that. Go Phightins! 02:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... You're changing this to a block request, even though you're only purpose here is to WP:TENDentiously WP:Edit war to violate WP:BLP against consensus, making personal attacks on those who stop you by calling them vandals? Are you even capable of acknowledging that ya done messed up? I mean, the multiple topic ban discussions over a few months are plenty of proof you don't understand what cooperation is, but that combined with not being able to acknowledge when you've made a mistake makes you someone this site doesn't need. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Everyone take a deep breath. Stop reverting. Stop calling people vandals.

The addition of content here is not a big crisis - it is sourced, it's just possibly WP:UNDUE - so there is no real reason it has to be completely deleted. However removing it due to a stricter interpretation of BLP is not vandalism. Useitorloseit, you are "more" wrong than they are, you're edit warring, and if this discussion was not about topic banning you (where you should be able to defend yourself), I'd have blocked you already. Hopefully the wishy-washy solution of collapsing it will make everyone dissatisfied, but not COMPLETELY dissatisfied. If anyone removes the collapsed material completely claiming BLP, I'll be disappointed, but ultimately I won't block someone for a strict but not unreasonable interpretation of BLP; I'm asking you to leave it collapsed. If the material is uncollapsed, I'll block for edit warring.

We now return to the topic ban discussion, already in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

TIME TO CLOSE THIS NONSENSE. (sorry for the shout but this is insane. Why waste more time? Cwobeel (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Inadmissible personal attack

I have been critical of the sourcing of the article Democracy & Nature. As a result, I was accused of "trying to destroy" the article on the talk page. The article is now at AfD. I requested at the talk page to refrain from personal attacks and was now answered with this edit, which I think is absolutely and totally inadmissible. --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

They've already slipped to Godwin's Law? Not a personal attack - not civil, but not an attack the panda ₯’ 22:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the attack, as well as the earlier attack in the header of a talk page discussion, and warned the user. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. The implication is clear. I'm a Nazi book burner. This kind of insult is inadmissible. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you mean impermissible. Anyway, it's a stupid thing for the other party to say, but a sanctionable personal attack? Meh. All too often, people get frustrated and say stupid things that only hurt the discussion. Under ideal circumstances we ignore that and try to keep things on topic. If the incivility or even personal attacks don't disrupt the discussion, then the discussion can be handled normally. If it persists, then sanctions can be considered. I don't think we're to the latter point, even though there's apparent excessive personal discussion at the talk page. In short, I don't see the need for sanctions just yet, though it would be good for an admin to keep an eye on the dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, I mean inadmissible (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 6th ed., Book Club Associates, 1977, p. 543). :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It was NOT an attack and it was NOT a comment. I explained to "my friend" that I'm busy reading about Nazi book burnings (a very important historical event) so I do not have the time to comment to his claims. I have more important things to do. It looks like that some people are more sensitive than others and in the case they happen to be wiki administrators who knows all the tricks and rules etc they use them for no reason. Another problem is that my talk page is not really mine. Someone comes, delete what he believes is not an appropriate behavior and later he open a discussion about. I though it must be the other way round. You open a discussion and at the end you delete or not the comments, attacks or whatever. I though wiki is an open project but looks like its semi-protected and semi-open. Some views are allowed while others not or with other words you have to fight to prove that you are not an elephant. I’m afraid what is left from the poor liberal democracy (Freedom of speech) now is demolished by the hands of some wiki administrators (bureaucrats). Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh fee and faw. This diatribe strongly suggests that you are not here to write an encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

See my editing history to see why I'm here. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A correction: The phrase "Another problem is that my talk page is not really mine." I wrote above is not correct because my "not civil behavior" took place at the D+N talk page not mine. The rest is ok. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You also have a bizarre belief that you have "freedom of speech" on a private website. That's funny. Don't make that mistake again. the panda ₯’ 00:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Nikosgreencookie has now inserted an enemies list on their user page [44]. Rgrds. --64.85.215.195 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Idols. Not Enemies. It’s my personal page and I use it in any way I believe is appropriate to help me doing good work as regards wiki editing. I have to follow the great actions of my personal idols to be able to improve myself as an editor and a man. And who are you? If you don’t mind. You are not here to write an encyclopedia Nikosgreencookie (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed your 'tribute'. You're digging yourself a hole here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The above comment: "You're digging yourself a hole here." is a personal attack. Please see: WP:NPA. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You should probably take a break from Wikipedia for the day and return when you have calmed down. Gamaliel (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

To even consider "You're digging yourself a hole here" to be a personal attack says a lot. Not everyone can figure out how this place works. Doc talk 03:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is neither a battleground, nor a court of law. Nikosgreencookie's behavior is simultaneously disingenuous and inflammatory. I would support an indefinite block, whether because this individual is not here to contribute to the creation of an encyclopedia, or because he or she is engaged in trolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What you say is no sense. Just check my long editing history to see my contribution to wikipedia. The rest is cheap stuff. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Second that support. This user seems determined to convince people they are here solely to be disruptive. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nikosgreencookie (talk · contribs) seems to do some decent gnomish referencing work that is beneficial. The recent edits (including to his "own" page") are decidedly not so good. Per WP:POLEMIC I removed his updated list of "idols" (which I was flattered to be among ;). If he reinstates them, he's in trouble. I don't think that he's a troll, and so I wouldn't vote for an indef right now. Let's see what he decides to do next. If a swift kick doesn't do it, so be it. Doc talk 04:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion that "you're digging a hole" is a personal attack is on the same level as the claim that being told to "drop the stick" was a threat of violence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Indeffs should not be proposed for WP:NOTHERE reasons. It's not even policy: it's an information page with a wide ranging list of behaviors that could indicate why an editor should be blocked. But blocked for what? Not being here to build an encyclopedia? Seems very subjective, no? This says we block for either protection or disruption. "NOTHERE" should never be linked in a block notice, nor it is ever a good enough reason to block outright. Now I'll get off my soapbox. Doc talk 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to start an argument on this issue, but I think it's fairly clear that this individual is engaged in disruption, and that his or her disruptive behavior will continue. Admittedly, NOTHERE itself is not always the clearest reason for sanctions, and in many respects it's the shortcut du jour—I recall some years ago that arguing that someone was a "net minus" was in vogue as a reason for blocking in spite of a history of positive contributions. Nevertheless, disruption is disruption, even if it's not primarily happening in articlespace (e.g., compiling shitlists in userspace, IDHT behavior). Anyhow, yes, WP:NOTHERE is an essay, but it's an essay interpreting policy; there's nothing wrong with blocking for complex reasons so long as the reasons are summarized in the block log, and a link to an essay is good enough for that. If it's an improper block, the community should clarify that the rationale articulated in WP:NOTHERE is invalid as grounds for a block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The punishment needs to fit the crime. I see no evidence to support an indefinite block on this editor. We don't toss someone aside based on the assumption that "his or her disruptive behavior will continue". How do you know that for sure? His only block was a 24-hour edit-warring block in 2012. He's upset with things here right now, and may very well calm down and move on productively. If he won't listen, and there is further disruption, he can be blocked. Doc talk 06:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me the action of the person behind the ip 64.85.215.195? I mean 64.85.215.195 appeared 3 times since 2005. @ 9 october 2005 @ 14 august 2010 and @ Yesterday. And for what? To send a "signal" to the "very right place" about my behavior in my personal wiki page. Is he a magician? I find it suspicious. It makes me to believe that he was intervened just because someone else asked him to do so. Is here base for me to claim that 64.85.215.195 is engaged in trolling? And if yes what actions must be taken? Any opinion and advice is welcome. Especially by Doc. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not remarkable. Lots of people edit from IPs, and people do get new IPs all the time. Could also be someone who accidentally logged out and doesn't want to out himself now by claiming the comment. In short, it doesn't really matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Doc talk 10:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• ...and there's no such thing as a "personal wiki page" on Wikipedia - you have a user page and a user talkpage that are the property of the Foundation, to be used according to the policies you agreed to. One provides some info about yourself and your interests, the other facilitates communication. If you have a "personal wiki page", that means you must have installed some type of wiki software elsewhere :-) the panda ₯’ 10:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indefblocked. In my opinion, this post by Nikosgreencookie's, in a talkpage discussion entitled "Randykitty's attempt to destroy the article (24 May 2014)", a section created by Nikosgreencookie themselves, is indeed inadmissible, since it does imply, or rather in a sneaky way does say, that Randykitty is akin to a Nazi bookburner (and has "burned" sections of the article in an attempt to destroy it, like the Nazis burned books so as to destroy them). The people who make light of it above may possibly be missing some context. Anyway, users can lose their temper, no doubt. But Nikosgreencookie's response in this thread shows him as not out of temper/out of control, but instead as a troll doing the "plausible deniability" dance: "It was NOT an attack and it was NOT a comment. I explained to "my friend" that I'm busy reading about Nazi book burnings (a very important historical event) so I do not have the time to comment to his claims. I have more important things to do." I won't even dignify that with the appellation of wikilawyering; it's pure trolling and taking us for a ride. And also further embellished with the suggestion that if Randykitty unaccountably takes the reference to reading about Nazi bookburnings as not merely an explanation of why Nikosgreencookie is so busy, then that shows that Randykitty is oversensitive "It looks like that some people are more sensitive than others". A classic troll. The follow-up trolling on his userpage doesn't exactly help, either, but it's the original attack + the denial of it that's my focus. If somebody wants to unblock, I won't stand in the way, and they don't need to consult me first, but I hope they'll only do it if there's a decent unblock request without any dancing in it. I hope there will be one; I've no wish to keep this user blocked infinitely. I hope nobody thinks I'm defending Randykitty because he's an admin; on the contrary, I'd block in stronger terms and with a stronger comment about unblock conditions if he wasn't an admin. Admins do need to put up with more than other users. But no user should be expected to put up with that. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

Kjangdom deleting academic sources and inserting self-published Shugden websites

Kjangdom is not even remotely pretending to adhere to Wikipedia policies anymore. Not even remotely. With misleading edit summaries, he is deleting whole swaths of journalistic and academic sources such as Bultrini, Dodin and Thurman while inserting self-published Shugden websites. And he never denied being a director of the International Shugden Community, whether here at ANI or on Bushranger's talk page. Lastly, most of his edits are from old Wikipedia revisions i.e. meatpuppeting Truthsayer62, a blocked editor. Heicth (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good afternoon! Heitch - the edits you have consistently made to the Dorje Shugden controversy article violate both undue weight principle and neutrality. The anti-shugden sources I removed last night help address the issue of undue weight. Moreover, at the end of May I expressed my concerns about the Thurman sources on the talk page, and received some helpful feedback from another editor who also raised concerns about the weight given to negative coverage of the controversy (after your editing). You abstained from this discussion on the talk page, and instead chose to bring it up on this admin page. I suggest you try to be more active on the talk pages than these admin pages - which I believe would comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter. Then we can reach a consensus. This seemed to work well on the talk page of the 14th Dalai Lama just recently, with a lot of discussion on the talk page which as you know, helped us to arrive at a consensus on including the Dorje Shugden controversy on the Dalai Lama's page.

Any neutral reader / editor who looks at this article on the Dorje Shugden controversy will immediately see how outrageously biased it still is, - just look at how long the section "Views of the majority of Tibetan Buddhism" was after your editing (937 words) compared to "Replies from Shugden practitioners" (a mere 32 words). This one fact speaks volumes about the intention behind your editing. Please explain to me how this does not violate the undue weight policy. Just ask yourself how you would react if we had 32 words in the section "Views of the majority of Tibetan Buddhism" (the word 'majority' here is wrong in opinion, but we can come back to that) and 937 words in the section "Replies from Shugden practitioners"!!! There are a number of reliable sources presenting a more positive view of this situation which I will be drawing on. Anyone who knows about this issue will know that the negative spin you have put on this issue simply presents a false picture of the situation. I plan to give this article some attention over the coming months, primarily because you have misrepresented the issue so badly. Let's work together to improve this article, without you reporting me after every edit I make that you disagree with, OK? Your approach does not exactly promote a friendly, co-operative learner-friendly environment to editing Wikipedia, does it? As I have previously said, I am new to Wikipedia and happy to learn from my mistakes, but you need to be honest as well and reflect on what damage you are causing the article with your persistently inappropriate, negative and one-sided edits. Kind regards, Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone show us where the steps in WP:DR have been followed? This appears to be a content dispute, and the fact that a talkpage discussion took place where the OP did not participate does not fill me with great confidence. The "meat" accusations are mere red-herrings from what I see the panda ₯’ 10:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No red herrings. See here. And as you can see Kjandom refers to secondary references as "anti-shugden sources", and thus deletes them with no hesitation. Its pretty ridiculous. Heicth (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually - that diff doesn't show Kjandom removing "anti-shugden sources", it shows you speaking to Bushranger about Kjandom. Nor does the Shugden page show a revert by Kjandom where he states he's removing "anti-shugden sources". Are you sure you have the right diff ? Kosh Vorlon    16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the second thread Heicth has started in recent days regarding this matter, the first of which is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Shugden SPA replacing academic material with self-published Shugden blogs and websites. I believe the information in that thread indicates that Heicth himself could reasonably be descibed as a POV pushing SPA on this topic, as well as perhaps others. However, Heicth seems to be the only one with such an itchy trigger finger to reporting matters here. I believe it might not be unreasonable for all three pages related to the Shugden controversy to be placed under temporary full protection, thus forcing all those apparent SPAs involved to actually talk to each other before making changes, and I think that Heicth also could not unreasonably be warned to maybe make more of an effort to refrain from acting on the type of basically battleground mentality which both ANI threads he has started in recent days at least mildly indicate he seems to have. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Kosh, Kjangdom refers to removing "anti-shugden sources" in his comment right above. John Carter, I am not a POV pushing SPA. I have worked closely with various admins since day one. You are simply unaware of who I am and the history of the Shugden pages. Heicth (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might be useful for you, as a comparatively new editor, to maybe actually read WP:SPA and the relevant pages regarding POV, because you seem to have not familiarized yourself with them. And I also believe that a review of your edit history here indicates that you actually are a very focused SPA editor relating to the Dalai Lama and the Shugden controversy. And I would love to see the evidence of how you have worked closely with others. One recent discussion I remember I had with you at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#Please delete long Gardner quote I believe shows that you don't work very closely at all with others, as I indicated there, one should make alternate proposals for content, which you did not do, and so far as I can tell simply removed the material on your own, which is hardly a real indication of your working "closely" with anyone. As for your statement of "who you are" above, I don't know, and actually, don't care, who you are, unless perhaps you are the Dalai Lama himself, which seems to me to be extremely unlikely. The fact that your previous user name, as you indicated, is User:TiredofShugden is yet another indicator that you are rather single-mindedly focused on matters related to Shugden, and promoting certain material in articles related to it, which is more or less the way that POV pusher and SPA are defined. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked editor Truthsayer62 was edit warring with admin Dougweller, hence my first username. I am no SPA or POV pusher.Heicth (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:DeadSend4 harrassing my talk page

The above user has been involved in a content dispute at Talk:Christina Aguilera#Dispute for the past 3 hours, calling each others names, dismissing others inputs and all. The link should be self explanatory. I had notofied admin Acalamari of the users ways and warned the user for continuous incivility on their part when the attacks at my talk page began. From this to this the user has been continuously haraassing my talk page with insults and all when I have made it very clear that I'm not to be disturbed, threatening legal action, as well as complete mayhem. He/she wants me to intervene on his behalf for other user's supposed comments. So I have requested other users also here who are involved in the discussion. @Petergriffin9901: and @HĐ: for their explanations as well. And mind you, the situation is actually pretty tense in the talk page. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to say to him about the topic but he kept on talking about irrelevant stuff recently. Simon (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indian forgot to mention that I had informed her calmly at first about being insulted as well and now that I threw in that legal action he/she suddenly spring into action but ignores the fact that I too have been insulted WAY worse DeadSend4 (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this Bio. Simply put, read the thread and count the insults/bad faith/fandom at work. He doesn't seem to be able to respect or work with other editors in anyway possible.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 11:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The user has still continued to harass my talk page and still admits to legal threats. This is sooo not done. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(reinserting the comment) And is now removing my comments. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC

Also, please don't act like a victim when I was NOT harrassing you, you just chose to ignore me over and over again. A simple "I'm looking into these comments" would have sufficed but you didn't. DeadSend4 (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you incapable of understanding the simple fact that you are NOT to remove others comments? You did it again here in this noticeboard in front of all admins and have continued the harassment. No wonder there's no sympathy for you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Called me the B-word. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You all can go fuck yourselves, I'm out. It's been fun! :) DeadSend4 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol. This guy is obviously missing some cogs upstairs. Acalamari was actually very gracious for not blocking us both (we crossed the 3RR) but all you did was continuously insult and bash him and his very fair and neutral actions. Shame on you.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 11:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) "I'm taking legal action now" in an edit summary is a pretty unambiguous legal threat. I'm not particularly crazy with IndianBio's comments on his/her user talk page, but that doesn't excuse DeadSend4's legal threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have indeffed DeadSend for NLT. However, there are additional issues above: although I have not seen the DIFF, they appear to have been called a "twat" among other things - there should be some warnings for NPA handed out where needed. I'm not sure it's normally blockworthy yet, however, whenever you drive someone off the cliff like has happened, it often IS blockworthy. Now, IndianBio is being absolutely ridiculous ... not just in their behaviour, but their statement above - they actually accuse DeadSend of "using the b word", when the diff they provide actually shows DeadSend using the letter b ... which yes, could have stood for "bitch", or possibly "bastard", but also possibly "Bio" or "buddy". This was a ridiculous morning for at least 3 people here, and rather childish by many the panda ₯’ 12:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The way this was going on, do you honestly blame me for thinking that he is calling me buddy? I'm sorry I have to disagree wtih you on that account. Anyways, thanks for dealing with this. Gooday to all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't leave yet ... a review your behaviour is still ongoing ... the panda ₯’ 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This comment by Petergriffin9901, as well as accusing a user (I think Bluesatellite?) of sockpuppetry (sans diffs). Those are just two diffs from the dispute at the Aguilera talk page. That's not good. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• [45] [46] Good block. Aside from the legal threat, he obviously lack the maturity and self-restraint to contribute in a productive fashion. —Dark 12:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I recall DeadSend4 from causing me to fail an earlier GA review of Christina Aguilera by making large scale reverts, though I think I was secretly glad as the review had become a long slog anyway. He was a bit abrasive but contributed constructively, and continued to do so, so maybe he just needs to not edit after a few pints (or over some other influence) and chill out, rather than being hit by the banhammer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

More personal attacks from an IP

Shortly after his block expired, 200.120.158.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blanked his talk page with the edit summary rm a lot of chuntering retards. He had previously been blocked personal attacks, including calling me a prick, a twat, and piece of shit. (See #Personal attacks above.) given that, and his pattern of tendentious edits, I think WP:Not here may apply. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the unacceptable edit summary, I've reblocked them for one week.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockhopping conspiracy theorist

These Tokyo-area IPs are probably the same user blocked previously (see ban discussion).

• 180.52.166.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 110.3.187.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Recent edits are mostly unsourced, NPOV insinuations of conspiracies, war profiteering, and tenuous loyalty by Jews. User seems to have changed tactic from editing BLP articles to mostly articles about historical figures. This user has an idiosyncratic style of edit summaries, which typically include many slash characters ("/").

Examples:

• Edict of explusion diff: POV, implies Jews had never been legitimate residents of European countries.
• Oliver Cromwell diff: unsourced, implies funding by Jewish merchants in Amsterdam
• Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting diff: unsourced, implies divided loyalty or citizenship of convenience for victims
  • Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting diff: ditto, from the other IP
• Samuel Samuel & Co diff: unsourced, implies war profiteering by Jewish-owned company
• Heartbleed diff: unsourced non-sequitur comparing Heartbleed bug to malware of possible Israeli origin

Proposing a block of these IP as for previous IPs used by this person. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 17:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly the same person: I blocked two static IPs in the last few days. I'll block these. Acroterion (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Another set of eyes needed at Bhupinder Singh Hooda

At Bhupinder Singh Hooda, there is an editor who is apparently the subject of the article who is attempting to remove a section from the article. He is claiming the information is wrong, the allegations have no proof, and he is trying to protect his image. See recent edit summaries in the article. I have attempted to convey to the editor how he should proceed, but so far is only actions have been to remove the section. Myself and another editor have reverted him. I believe the section is properly sourced to reputable sources and complies with WP:VERIFY. This is a WP:BLP issue. I'd like another set of eyes on this with someone more experienced with the BLP realm than I. I am notifying the editor in question. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the sources only report this as an allegation - and state that the woman responsible for bringing the court case had subsequently withdrawn the petition, [47] a section entitled 'Controversial second marriage' and an assertion that the marriage was 'illegal' was not only undue, but a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. If the subject of the article was indeed responsible for removing it (as I have done), he was perfectly entitled to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Andy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

M9820841415 and WP:SPAM on multiple articles

User User:M9820841415 has been vandalizing Wikipedia by adding an insignificant reference to his/her own work on several important articles, probably for WP:PROMOTION. In a few days he has vandalized 9 articles about biopolymers and gels by self-promoting a poorly written and not-related-to-the-topic, reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/M9820841415

--Jgfermart (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTVAND, it's not vandalism, but it is spam per WP:REFSPAM. Ian.thomson (talk)

It is vandalism as defined in WP:VANDTYPES Link vandalism:

"Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling."

"Spam external linking"

Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially.

And in some cases also editions are followed by one or two words editions to avoid easy reverting of the edition as defined in Edit summary vandalism

--Jgfermart (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Note the words "if the activity continues after a warning." This is the closest to a warning he's received. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that the editor felt that the article is poorly written and not-related-to-the-topic. The article in question is published in Chemical Society Reviews ("Chemical Society Reviews (Chem Soc Rev) is the Royal Society of Chemistry's flagship reviews journal, publishing high-impact, succinct and reader-friendly articles at the forefront of the chemical sciences."). The wikipedia has been a great resource in my studies since my highschool, and I believe the adding the reference adds value to existing article. The wikipedia articles were carefully edited, and thoughtfully the reference was added. The intention here is not to spam. Here is the link uploaded article.

Added reference to wiki page: Gel, Biomaterials (The article discusses use of hydrogels within the biomaterial applications, citing all important work in last 5-7 years in the field of bioengineering)

Added reference to wiki page Click chemistry (The article discusses use of various click reactions in material synthesis. Summary of click reactions is present in the published article on page 12 (7346)).

Added reference to wiki page Polyethylene glycol, Hyaluronan, Heparin, Alginate, and Chitosan: (The article extensively discusses materials for hydrogel preparation on page 5 (7339), citing important applications in the field of biomaterials).

--(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Glancing over the article and where you linked it, it looks like you just inserted the reference where ever there were shared chemical terms. For example, here you added it as a source for the statement that alginate is used for cell encapsulation, information that is present in your article, but that your article gets from "M. Tang, W. Chen, M. D. Weir, W. Thein-Han and H. H. Xu, Acta Biomater., 2012, 8, 3436–3445" and "W. H. Tan and S. Takeuchi, Adv. Mater., 2007, 19, 2696–2701." Why did you not cite those sources instead of your derivative source if you weren't just trying to increase awareness of your article in particular? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if the article were relevant for a specific topic about general biomedical uses of hydrogels, the article lacks relevance for any of the specific subtopics. There are articles with more detail and importance about each of the polymers involved. Considering the article to be significant for 9 different topics on biomaterials reveals a biased opinion (authorship?). --Jgfermart (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

PoV pushing. WP:3RR, political allegiance, bias, and so go on

There's currently a long tiresome edit conflict going on on the Iran page (and some pages related to it) wich consists of constant reversions, edits based on personal opinion, and a violation of WP:3RR as I see it. None of them resort in discussing it, and therefore resort to spamming undo's/RV's. The users I'm talking about are Arvid Qasemy (talk · contribs), Qizilbash123 (talk · contribs), and Soroush90gh (talk · contribs) (to a much lesser extent). User:Qizilbash123 is neglecting and declining the reliable facts and keeps spamming reverts and undo's. He's constantly removing the sources and statements given and replacing them with sources given or favoured by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, neglecting and removing all other souces that are already given (if you check the edit history of the page and of his own you see that he's deliberately pushing on certain things such as lowering the amount of Iranian casualties in the war, or even resorting in removing the fact that the Iranian women protested against the newly inposed Hijab laws), or just merely replaces them with his own sources of a different opinion. He's heavily pushing an agenda and being a total nuisance to the Wikipedia community by doing so. Here some minor examples of his work both on the Iran article, and other related Iranian articles; [[48]], [[49]], [[50]], [[51]], [[52]] (Can it get more obvious than this last one?)

He also violates WP:3RR here -> (links [[53]], [[54]], [[55]])

(01:53, 3 June 2014‎ Qizilbash123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (134,872 bytes) (-226)‎ . . (Undid revision 611310437 by LouisAragon (talk)) (undo | thank)) -

(14:02, 3 June 2014‎ Qizilbash123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (135,307 bytes) (-226)‎ . . (Undid revision 611346894 by Soroush90gh (talk)) (undo | thank)) -

(23:51, 3 June 2014‎ Qizilbash123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (134,872 bytes) (-1,286)‎ . . (restoring stable version without A. Qasemy's photos and Soroush90gh's bias) (undo | thank)

Then we have User:Arvid Qasemy who constantly keeps editing and reverting the same Iran article with redundant edits purely based on his personal opinion without any edit descriptions given or any consensus, and also doesn't seem to care a bit about the constant rv's/undo's that are going on. being a total nuisance on his own. He's also removing completely well written pieces without any reason or any edit summary given (such as here [[56]]). Note how both him and Qizilbash123 didn't even bother once to reach a WP:CON during all this time. Finally we have Soroush90gh, despite he's not doing any PoV edits or whatsoever or anything going in against Wiki law so far unlike Qizilbash123 and Arvid Qasemy, he still keeps the nuisance triangle as I call it alive as he keeps undo'ing and reverting it like Qizilbash and Qasemi. Seeing that he couldn't reach anything with them, he should've brought it to the mods a whole lot earlier. Make a visit to the edit history of the article if you want't to see more [[57]].

I don't know what precise penalties should be given to wich people in question here, but this nuisance should be stopped as soon as possible. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

IP consistently adds unreferenced material

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

IP occasionally adds unreferenced material to various articles on Wikipedia and has ignored edit summaries in reverts as well as warnings on their talk page. After the last revert, which can be seen here, the editor proceeded to quickly revert changes without using "undo" as seen here. Warnings from Level 1 through 4 have been given. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)