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

Antidiskriminator

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

---

Required reading (sorry):

• Talk:Đurđevdan uprising generally
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: Đurđevdan uprising
• User talk:Joy#My queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: My queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions
• User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 33#Antidiskriminator
• User talk:Joy#"Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results" + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: "Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results"
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising II + User talk:Antidiskriminator#Re: Đurđevdan uprising

This series of unproductive communications between User:Antidiskriminator and myself has crossed the line between annoyingly bizarre and disruptive. After months of discussion, we're clearly not making any substantial progress, because today Antidiskriminator actually explicitly accused me on the article talk page of conspiring with User:Peacemaker67 to molest him, acting against consensus, having no support outside of a purported tag team, etc. To add insult to injury, that's in reply to a discussion where we actually had a new user (User:Roches) post a lengthy critique of Ad's choices that touched on all the issues that I raised earlier, and then some.

One of the links above is from when I had asked User:EdJohnston, the admin who had last topic-banned Antidiskriminator over unhelpful Talk page behavior, and then unbanned him, to review that decision. He suggested more discussion at the time. In any event, this doesn't have to be adjudicated by a single person, so I'm bringing it up here. With regard to admin involvement, I have to also mention a recent incident where I was blocked by User:JamesBWatson after having imposed blocks in a manner that could have reasonably put my impartiality into question. An unfortunate coincidence is that this story also involved Antidiskriminator, and he's proceeded to use that against me in discussions.

Yes, it's possible to continue toiling away at this rate, engaging in numerous mind-numbing discussions, !voting in numerous RMs, fixing various unreliable source issues, and trying to make sense of user talk. But it's an unreasonable drain on our collective resources. Volunteer time is a scarce commodity, and we shouldn't waste it on repeating the same errors and error corrections all the time.

I have no intention of using my admin powers here (despite the myriad slaphappy accusations by Ad of how I'm abusing them...), and instead I'm asking for others to help. Some sort of a topic ban should be imposed that would break this disruptive pattern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

This has been literally going on for several years. The only time I have experienced Antidiskriminator not behaving in this way is during his ARBMAC topic ban on Pavle Đurišić, imposed (and later lifted) by User:EdJohnston. Since the lifting of his topic ban on 10 January, Antidiskriminator has started over 45 new sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, making over 560 edits on the talk page. In the entire history of the article, he has made only 46 edits in article space. A quick skim of the talk page and its two most recent talk page archives will give you a taste of the behaviour, which includes him placing "Not resolved" tags on threads, and refusing to edit in article space despite the fact that on numerous occasions there has been no opposition to material being added. It has recently been extended to Talk:Vojislav Lukačević, where Antidiskriminator has started 19 new talk page sections since 17 June.

Because of the incredibly frustrating behaviour, circular discussions and constant going off on tangents, my judgement has slipped on a couple of occasions, and I have consequently unilaterally imposed a ban on interacting with Antidiskriminator on both these articles unless he first edits in article space. This appears to have had no effect, but at least now I am not being drawn into more and more discussions that go nowhere, and his WP:IDHT approach. I have also banned him from posting on my user talk page, because he was effectively harassing me there as well. The evidence is that the lifting of the topic ban has only encouraged him to continue with his disruptive behaviour, and that it is getting worse. I consider that a three month topic ban on Yugoslavia in WWII (broadly construed) would be appropriate, and might have the desired effect of getting him to ameliorate his behaviour. If it doesn't have the desired effect, an indefinite ban will probably be necessary. He just isn't making enough of a contribution to the encyclopedia to justify the disruption. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add, for anyone watching this, that Antidiskriminator is not only aware of this discussion (because Joy obviously advised him), but since it was logged, he has been busily working away in areas that are not the subject of this discussion, with over 75 edits in less than two days. I am afraid that he has no respect for consensus-based processes, he just soldiers on regardless, in the hope that it will just go away and he can return to the same pattern of behaviour. God help the editors that work in late 19th century/early 20th century Serbian history, because that is what he is editing now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by IJA

I think it is fair to say that me and Antidiskriminator don't see eye to eye. I'm no angel, but then again Antidiskriminator is certainly no angel either. He isn't the easiest editor to work with, but then again, neither am I. In February he went through a phase of harassing me on my talk page making weird comments, making false accusations (mainly that I was personally attacking people when I hadn't) and just general spamming. [1] and [2] I warned Antidiskriminator back then to stop harassing my talk page [3]. After this, he stopped harassing my talk page. I had previously told him that "Your harassment and spamming on my talk page is irritating. I will be deleting anything you post on here." I just wanted to be left alone and not have a constant barrage of comments from him on my talk page. It is like he has to have the final word on everything.
I recently spent ages upgrading the history on the "Prizren" article and Antidiskriminator just out of the blue reverted it and he tried justifying it by saying that the history added to the article makes Serbs look "particularly bad". All I was trying to do was upgrade the history section and he wanted to censor bits he didn't like. As a Brit, I know we have one of the darkest histories in the world, but I'd never say we shouldn't include something on Wikipedia because it makes Brits look "particularly bad". This was blatant stonewalling by Antidiskriminator.
I'm in no position to say whether or not he should be topic banned and I certainly don't think it would be fair of me either as I tend to have disagreements with Antidiskriminator. This is Wikipedia, everyone should be free to edit. I think it is worth mentioning that Antidiskriminator can be a useful editor and he does sometimes make useful contributions to Wikipedia, even though he does tend to be a thorn in my side. He can be an asset at times. Regards IJA (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

From my own experience with Antidiskriminator, I would second Joy's and Peacemaker's complaints. It's difficult to provide diffs because it's just such a pervasive and diffuse long-term pattern of behaviour, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. I've unfortunately got involved in disagreements with him on a small number of occasions myself, so I probably no longer count as uninvolved (although I have no involvement in any of the disputes Joy is talking about), but I'd say it's high time somebody pulled the WP:ARBMAC trigger on him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Joy and Peacemaker, but Fut.Perf. has really hit the nail on the head. Antidiskriminator occasionally does something blatant, like adding hoax content, tag-teaming with obvious socks, using fake numbers, creating pov-forks &c.; but really the main problem is the pervasive low-level pov-pushing on Balkan history and geography, and the stonewalling. It's been going on for years. bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pm67 proposed a three-month topic ban above. The previous topic ban, narrower in scope, lasted between 2012-11-02 and 2014-01-10, that is, 14 months. If there is consensus that the previous topic ban had no positive effect, I see no point in a new topic ban that is shorter than 14 months, and the scope also has to be wider. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin therefore I don't believe it is my place to say what ban, if any ban at all Antidiskriminator should get. IJA (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin, IJA. WP is run by the community, which empowers admins to do certain tasks on its behalf. They are a bit like the police in that respect, they operate with the consent of the community. If community consent is withdrawn, the mop is taken away. That doesn't mean we are governed by the admins, or that they are the only ones whose opinions matter. For Joy and Bob, I believe a shorter but much wider ban would permit the community to see if Antidiskriminator can edit outside Yugoslavia in WWII without being disruptive. That topic is my concern here, because that is where I deal with his behaviour. However, you and others may be aware of other areas where he is being disruptive, in which case the scope of the ban should be widened further, perhaps to include anything to do with Serbia or Serbs (broadly construed). If he returns to the behaviour demonstrated after the ban ends, then I think the only answer is an indefinite site ban, just as he has on Serbian WP (for similar behaviour). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT the topic area that encompasses the articles where I've noticed Antidiskriminator to have been disruptive would be 20th-century Serbian history, broadly construed. That should cover both the '09 Dedijer book stuff at Talk:Skaramuca and the '90s war stuff at Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars. Since we have a pretty clear case of recidivism here, I just don't see a point in a short length ban, but obviously anything is better than nothing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't work on the World War 2 stuff if you paid me, because the editing environment there is so toxic. I work on other topics, for instance more recent Balkan history; but where that involves Serbia, it involves Antidiskriminator, and similar problems appear - kneejerk reverts, stonewalling, pov-forks, misrepresentation, &c. There is also highly asymmetric use of sources - where content fits a Serb-nationalist POV, sourcing requirements are very low; but where it doesn't fit that POV, suddenly even the strongest sources are somehow disqualified and the content swiftly removed. More frustrating is that when some other (more blatant) pov-pusher (or sockpuppet) appears on the scene and other editors are trying to contain the damage, Antidiskriminator gives the POV-warrior support and helps them with a few reverts. For instance, the most destructive Balkan POV-warriors who have been kicked off the project seem to have one thing in common: Antidiskriminator gave them barnstars (Example 1, 2 3, 4 5). As far as the scope of a topic ban is concerned, I am pragmatic. I just want to make it possible for other editors to fix some of our neutrality problems. Half the scope means half the benefit, but that's better than nothing at all. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What about Serbia and Serbs from 1900-? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. There are probably some potential conflicts in the 19th century (or in the Ottoman era), but I think your proposal would tackle the most serious problems. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate topic ban would be a ban on topics involving/ relating to "Serbs, Serbia, Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslavia" 1900 to Present? This way it will stop any topic ban from being loosely interpreted. IJA (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban on Antidiskriminator

Consensus from the two involved (Joy) and possibly involved (Future Perfect) admins and the other editors in this thread (bobrayner and I) appears to be coalescing around proposing a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving "Serbs and Serbia 1900-current" (broadly construed). Given we have yet to get any non-involved admin comment on this thread so far, and Antidiskriminator appears to be avoiding the issue, I believe it is appropriate to make a formal topic ban proposal for the admins here to consider. I would particularly like to get User:EdJohnston's perspective, given he was the one who lifted the original, much narrower ban. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I tried to work with to three requested moves and Antidiskriminator's "stonewalling" wasted a lot of time and energy in the moves, repeating things which weren't accurate or had be refuted, and it spread to other pages like user talk and move review. Now Look What You've Done (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hours after I supported a topic ban, sockpuppets have started reverting my old edits, like this [4] :-( Now Look What You've Done (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• People, what we need here is more input from uninvolved observers. As much as I would want this topic ban to happen, it's no use for us involved people to be proposing or "!voting" for things here. Without outside attention, nothing's gonna happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, FP, if we don't make some attempt to progress it, it will just get archived as "too hard" by the admins that work here every day, because those admins aren't willing to dip their toes into ARBMAC territory, because that is generally not where they work. I've been here before, and I'm sure you and Joy have seen it too. That is the reality of bringing anything of mild complexity and longevity to this board. Easy stuff gets dealt with quite quickly. That is why I have tried to progress it, given it is already half-way up the current list, with no uninvolved admin comment at all, even from Ed Johnston, who was the one who lifted the ban. Frankly, I think that the admins that were involved in the original ARBMAC discussion, the ban and the lifting of the ban should make some time to at least give it their opinion. Short of pinging them, what else is a non-admin supposed to do? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, it has taken me hours to read the history of Pavle Đurišić and other pages, but that is the problem: The tendentious editing of Antidiskriminator, and always arguing over any little detail for POV. I am not sure about how long the ban should be. I don't think I'm involved, at worst I did give a WP:3O on a different Serbia page, years ago. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 17:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for spending the time reviewing the history, Dentalplanlisa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed much of the material on the Đurđevdan uprising, which led me to the conclusion that a topic ban is warranted at this time. My previous interaction with Antidiskriminator was at The Holocaust, where my perception was that he intended to block the removal of peripheral content from the article, which meant it would be impossible for the article to reach GA status. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was briefly involved there too, and his behaviour there was classic Antidiskriminator, working every angle to retain POV material. The question of "is the mass killing of Serbs in the NDH part of the Holocaust" is a victim-centred Serb POV issue from the 90's which is well documented by a wide range of scholars. I don't think your involvement there makes you "involved", Diannaa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Starting from tomorrow I will be on holiday and may not respond swiftly to queries. I expect to be able to reply to questions with not more than 24-48 hours delay. With all due respect for a group of editors (who were all except Dentalplanlisa involved in disputes with me) I don't think they presented valid arguments for sanctions against me. I still believe that Joy should simply initiate WP:RM as explained to him multiple times, also by another administrator in his replies (diff and diff) to Joy's and Peacemaker67's complaint about my conduct. If in the meantime the consensus is reached that Joy was right that there was something wrong with my editing, I sincerely apologize in advance and promise not to repeat same mistake in future. All the best!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's good timing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree with the tendentious editing accusation being leveled at Antidiskriminator. I don't see much wrong with his contributions overall. Or I should say I don't see anything more wrong with them than with the contributions of the involved editors preparing the groundwork for his ban here. He's clearly got an inherent bias when it comes to Balkan history, as do many of the editors going after him here. Skullduggery and douchery, whether active or passive, that stem from those opposing views and biases have long been the editing norm on those articles and this proposal is basically just another battlefield of a fued that's long crossed over into personal territory.Zvonko (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I pretty much expected you to say something like this after how you behaved at Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo - a lot of general claims that just don't hold up to scrutiny. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sinful "behaviour" of utilizing cognitive capabilities and coming up with output different from yours. Oh, the blasphemy! You should seriously consider suggesting a ban for my "behaviour".Zvonko (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If it were only so innocuous. You advocated, in rather strong words, a position that was a essentially a trivially disingenuous misreading of search engine output, which in turn had to be explicitly debunked by myself and several other users - and then you failed to acknowledge the error, let alone change your !vote or even apologize for insisting on something so easily disproven. So, like I said, I don't really expect you to understand what Antidiskriminator's disruptive behavior is, when you willfully engage in it as well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you would definitely know about disingenuity and disruption, I'll give you that. This is why you're so comfortable accusing others of it. Psychological projection is one helluva a defense mechanism. From pretending Dado Pršo's first name isn't Miladin, and blatantly ignoring reliable sources confirming so, to this episode where you're a.) misinterpreting my position on a different talk page and b.) attaching sinister intent on my part, both in a pathetic little attempt of disqualifying my opinion when it comes to this ban proposal - it's just the kind of obnoxiousness that's par for the course with you. Also, lest anyone takes your distortions at face value, the only thing you and "several other users" (by which you mean PRODUCER, another all-star power forward from the same school of disingenuous as you who got forced into early retirement) "debunked" are your own concoctions that have nothing to do with what I argued for.Zvonko (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly did not blatantly ignore any reliable source, I in fact argued for the adherence to Wikipedia verifiability policies with regard to a biography of a living person, way back in 2006. The claim that Dado Pršo was actually using the name Miladin has apparently been a Serbian nationalist talking point on Wikipedia, and I nevertheless extended the assumption of good faith towards the anonymous user who was pushing that POV, trying to explain to them how policies are supposed to work. We got WP:ARBMAC only in late 2007, and from that point forward, this kind of a thinly veiled political advocacy has been easier to deal with.

BTW, User:JamesBWatson, see, this is exactly what I meant when I told you earlier about having been around for a long time and editing in a topic area that is rife with axe-grinding. I get insulted today over a good-faith effort I had engaged in eight years ago. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(*facepalm*) Classic Joy. The posturing, the scrambling empty rhetoric, the conceit, the dishonest nudge to the admin that recently blocked him for abuse of administrative powers, which can essentially be summarized as "look at me being victimized here, JamesBWatson, look, look, my edits have a statute of limitations after all you know, I told, I told you, I'm surrounded by axe-grinding Serbs out to get me, who don't even mind bringing up things I did 8 years ago" .... it's all here on sad display. I need to go detoxify myself after taking in this much BS in one sitting.Zvonko (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You have serious issues with the WP:BLP policy if you think that anyone is going to interpret my ancient insistence on the use of the name X Y for a person whom all existing sources call X Y, or else insistence on a smattering of sources attesting otherwise - as an act of anything other than trivial, essential policy enforcement. The amount of assumption of bad faith you're showing here should lead to a ban for yourself, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Threatening me with a ban is the best you can do, you're getting less and less creative with each post. As explained to you ages ago, by it seems multiple users, the fact that a relative "smattering" of sources refer to Sol Campbell as "Sulzeer", [[Co Adriaanse] as "Jacobus", Cotton Fitzsimmons as "Lowell", Red Auerbach as "Arnold", Toe Blake as "Joseph Hector"... (and literally hundreds of other examples just to limit it to sports) doesn't mean their first names stopped being what they are and are not worthy of inclusion in their respective bios. Only you see a Serb conspiracy in including Dado Prso's real name in his bio.Zvonko (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not "a Serb conspiracy", it's merely anonymous editors who appear to be interested in promoting an unverified Serbian name claim over the preponderance of verifiable evidence - a glaring violation of WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOTHERE... Besides, you didn't appear to even check that Sol Campbell's article now actually has a proper inline citation that verifies that full name to what appears to be a book source. If someone simply did that in the case of Pršo's full name, there would be no problem. Instead you appear to prefer to stand on the sidelines for eight years and then start lobbing insults at me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

But they offered you a bunch of references that you all readily dismissed so how's it an 'unverified claim'? And how did AFP become a 'Serbian unverified name claim'!?..... And yeah sorry for not becoming aware of the Dado Pršo issue earlier so that I could have been keeping a vigil for 8 years beside the Dado Pršo article protecting it against angry Croats who kept removing the references. You know how it is, I was too busy plotting your demise for 8 years and I didn't want to blow my cover too soon.Zvonko (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, IIRC they offered a link to a single AFP story that mentions this name. When I asked why wasn't this name mentioned in all the other stories, something that would at least attempt to explain this discrepancy, there was no actual answer.--Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't remember correctly, there was more than a single AFP story, but alright.Zvonko (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

As for 8 years - well, you brought this up. How did you become aware of it now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What a tonally clumsy question. What's really troubling you? Are you suspecting foul play or conspiracy of some sort?

Actually, now that I think about it, I did contact the Serbian state security like I often do for my Wiki editing, especially when Croats, as is the case here, are involved. So, my old buddy at the Serb state security provided me with useful info about your past Wiki editing transgressions. I believe his exact words as he was handing me the envelope in a dark Belgrade underground parking garage were: "Oh yeah, that Croat falsely accused you of being disruptive? That's total WP:HAR! Here's what you hit him with".

Anyway, lest you think the above actually took place (after all you demonstrated yourself here to be bereft of any ability of processing figurative speech), Prso got mentioned during the World Cup TV coverage I watched, something about almost quitting pro football in his mid 20s when only low division clubs wanted him before giving himself one last chance to get something out of his football and eventually making the World Cup squad, signing with Rangers, and so on, so I wikied him and started reading the talk discussion.Zvonko (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what's at play here, and it's not really important, because I ultimately don't see any legitimate reason for these kinds of attacks regardless of how they originated. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, great deflection. You merely asserted that you were misinterpreted in that debate, and that I attacked you in this debate, without providing any actual plausible explanation for anything. Instead, you turned to smearing me with a blatantly flawed argument. And then you have the gall to talk about empty rhetoric. This is true sophistry. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Had you actually bothered to read and look into the context of what i wrote there instead of quick-skimming through swathes of text looking for any ammunition that you can remotely cobble together for the purposes of making me into a "disruptive editor cut from the same cloth as Antidiskriminator" all in a pretty pathetic attempt of disqualifying my opinion here only because it doesn't happen to fit into your current needs, you would've perhaps known what I argued for there. PRODUCER (well known all over Wikipedia for being a lovely, open-minded, balanced, and all around brilliant guy who is in a well-deserved retirement) wanted the article describing what happened to the Sarajevo Serbs and their property in the immediate hours and days post-Ferdinand-assasination on June 28 and 29, 1914 to be named "Anti-Serb demonstrations in Austria-Hungary", a gross misrepresentation in my opinion both spatially and in terms of the nature of what took place. He went about his goal by framing the discussion from the start as a puerile Google Books hits measuring contest garnered with very creative interpretations of the hits while avoiding at all costs the discussion of the gist of the matter of what it is that took place in Sarajevo in those days and coming up with a suitable name for it based on Wikipedia:Name. Several editors, including you followed him along this path while I, among other things, attempted to demonstrate to you all (using extremely clear and simple 4th grade reading level statements of what it is I'm trying to communicate) what an exercise in stupidity this is by offering the sizable number of hit returns for some truly ridiculous terms that definitely do not accurately describe the events yet get some traction. Your concoctions of sinister intent, disruption, or whatever other accusation you're throwing my way make about as much sense as your conduct and reasoning on Talk:Dado Pršo and Dado Pršo, both recent and back in 2006.Zvonko (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we keep this on topic? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus decision of that move discussion (by User:BDD) says clearly that the term "demonstrations" is better and more common in sources than "pogrom" (and then also that "riots" is the best solution). It also says while there wasn't consensus for using the wider geographic scope, there wasn't prejudice to doing so if more content is added. So the two things that the User:PRODUCER proposed to change - he wasn't actually wrong to do so. There was certainly no consensus that it was "puerile", "stupid", or "ridiculous". His initial method wasn't completely precise, because it didn't use quotes in search queries to connect words into phrases, but neither was yours. All you achieved with that flawed argument was to make the discussion that much longer and less focused on building consensus. And with this explanation, it's actually clear that you weren't into it with the necessary assumption of good faith, rather it was just a case of battleground attitude. It's not sinister, but it's definitely disruptive. That you continue to think so badly of your fellow editors is usually a sign that you're not going to become less disruptive when dealing with them in the future. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, Joy, the Disingenuous Univ all-star power forward I talked about earlier is hitting top form again. You accuse me of being disruptive, having battleground attitude, and assuming bad faith for using inductive reasoning and figurative speech!? You're just lobbing baseless accusations my way hoping for, at this point, only you know what. I mean if you were 7 I guess I could take this at face value, but seeing that your probably not 7 I don't know what to say. Either you're very unintelligent or just plain disingenuous, and you're not very unintelligent so.... Also, where did you dream up that "User:BDD says clearly that the term demonstrations is better and more common in sources than pogrom"? He neither says nor implies any comparative quality statements. What he said was "It's certainly correct that pogrom can describe events against ethnic groups besides Jews, however, and that some sources referred to these events as a pogrom. For that reason, there's no need to scrub the word out from the article entirely, though I will naturally be removing some instances of it in connection with the rename." and "There was a preference for riots over demonstrations as a replacement term. As a neutral, I think this is essentially correct. Demonstration conjures up images of people marching with placards, not attacking people and vandalizing property based on ethnic divisions. The term is used in sources, however." Zvonko (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

He would never have even considered the idea of scrubbing the word out from the article entirely had he not thought that it was more appropriate. He was being fair to the minority argument; OTOH you're just wikilawyering now, and continuing to dig a hole for yourself with more of this condescending tripe. We're definitely not exchanging any new information here, so this discussion really needs to end here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Antidiskriminator's comment here is the same old misrepresentation. No, Joy isn't the only person to have issues with Antidiskriminator's editing; many editors in the Balkans have. (All of whom are "involved", by Antidiskriminator's definition). It's not just over one article either, but swathes of articles; misrepresenting sources, cherrypicking, and systematically reverting other peoples' work - regardless of how well it's sourced - if it doesn't fit a radical Serb nationalist POV. Strangely, Antidiskriminator's "vacation" means that he can't explain those problems here, but he still has free time to edit-war over POV-forks like this (He originally wrote it as "Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo", and still talks at length about pogroms, even though it wasn't a pogrom). Some articles have included hoaxes like Serbia's NUTS regions for years - it doesn't matter whether or not these are actual NUTS regions (they aren't); as long as Antidiskriminator is editing, it stays in wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth be told, reverting those anonymous blankings, which are probably work of some long-time abuser evading a block, was the correct immediate course of action on the face of it. This is why this is not a simple complaint. Perhaps you can invest some time to explain why that "Demonisation of the Serbs" draft is a bad idea - since on the face of it, it looks like a well-referenced article in the making... it's not necessarily immediately obvious in what way it is tendentious. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: given you proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted the 2012 ARBMAC topic ban on Antidiskriminator, and he has demonstrably engaged in "further tendentious editing on the topic of the Chetniks", I would like your views on the above proposal. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Given what I've just read I'm not sure why we aren't talking about an indef block and community ban. This is exactly the kind of subtle POV pushing that Wikipedia needs less (or none) of. --NellieBly (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Continuation of disruptive activity by a SPA account

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

---

User:Djmex9205 is a SPA account that has been causing disruption at Motion picture rating system. Their conduct was reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive250#User:Djmex9205 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 48 h) where they received a 48 hour block.

Another SPA account was registered today as User:RazorShotter and has yet again installed the same disruptive and unsourced edit at the same article: [5]. This edit was followed by an act of vandalism just 20 minutes later by the original SPA, Djmex9205, which was reverted by a Cluebot. The editors are clearly one and the same, since they enclose their edit summaries with the same typography i.e. /* Comparison */

I don't think this editor is here to serve any useful service so please will someone disable both accounts permanently, and perhaps put the article under semi-protection to prevent further disruption by SPAs. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"/* Comparison */" is the name of the sub-section they're working on. That's a default edit summary. They're edit-warring over the color of a rating tag? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Last week, Djmex was edit warring with the bot. I'm starting to think there is a CIR issue at hand. I don't definitive reasons to think RazorShotter same person, although the slightly paranoid first edit to their own talk page is odd and they may know each other. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell from the diffs, but there is a clear explanation at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#US_PG_rating. Basically what they were initially doing (and what the new SPA has continued doing) is installing an age restriction on the American PG rating that does not exist. The MPAA does not stipulate an age restriction for the PG rating at all (the PG-13 rating is a separate rating and already accounted for in the table). The MPAA source is provided in the article itself and at the discussion on the talk page. Since then they have started adding false summaries to the guidelines, and in the most recent edit they have changed one of Mexico's color bars so it contradicts Mexico's age rating guidelines. This isn't a content dispute, these are edits that flat-out contradict the age rating summaries and their sources. Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked both, the diffs made it clear, plus behavior. Socking, CIR, WP:DE, etc. Too much coincidence here, socking is the only possible answer. I tried to see them as just "friends", but in the end, the behavior is just too similar. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and semi-protected one month as well, since obviously they are willing to sock to introduce that info. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

Hi I am Tamravidhir. I have a problem and the problem which I am facing is that there is this article, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, which is an article on an Indian soap opera. Bade Achhe Lagte Hain is a Hindi phrase. It's difficult to make a direct translation, but the phrase vaguely means "looks too nice". The thing is that I have made major edits to this article. In fact its the article which has been most edited by me. I have added some useful information, kept in mind that "Michelangelo created David by cutting out what was not David" and kept the plot short and blah blah and blah. And what should be mentioned is that I have added extensive references to reliable sources such as articles published by national newspapers. And now there is a user known as TheRedPenOfDoom who has always dismissed the article saying that the references cannot be accepted "as per Wikipedia guidelines" and has been keeping on deleting the information which has no reference. I have almost ended up doing an edit war. This user is the only user with whom I have had terrible experiences. Now, after a break the user has come back and is again deleting information. Firstly, the soap opera aired at 10:30 pm so that means that it is late evening, and there's even a reference regarding the time slot but he says that: You may NOT keep reinserting your personal interpretations of "sporadic" or "very late" without providing a reliably published source that verifies the claim.

Except this there is also an info which says that the soap opera's broadcast on Thursdays in 2014 was sporadic. The user again says that there is no reference so he or she has been deleting the info. I guess that there is a "citation needed" tag which I have add now. But I have seen many article without references or such tags in the lead paragraph. For instance, the article The Simpsons and there are more, such as How I Met Your Mother and Muhteşem Yüzyıl. And I don't know why the user is always up to prove me wrong! He or she is somewhat engaged in WP:BITE.

And this is not ending by a healthy discussion. And the biggest problem is that we have discussed the matter in our personal talk pages and note the article talk page. The is very dominating, dogmatic and adamant. It will lead to something terrible after which I would have to take a long break and come back later (now I think that I would have to). I don't want that to happen. So I want help. Please help me. I would also like you to know what another user has written on his talk page:

I saw what you did at Supriya Pathak. I asked you nicely but you took it on your ego and vented your frustration by blanking more sections of the page. If you really want to remove unsourced or poorly sourced info then why don't you give some time to other editors so that they can properly add sources. You are clearly discouraging other editors who are still learning like me. You just want to be superior to others. First you want sources and when you are provided with them, you call them bad and unreliable. You should be encouraging people but it seems like you are on a mission to prove something. Sorry for my this behavior but you kind of disappointed and demoralized me today...

And this is true. I am not hatching a plot against the mentioned user, but just expressing my views and opinions and begging for help. Help this poor user! Please I need a help! The user is just not understanding. There has to be my fault but what the user is doing is also wrong and s/he is not understanding it. S/he just boasts about Wikipedia rules even if he doesn't know how to properly use and implement them. Please help me. I will be more than grateful to you!Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Tamravidhir: this appears to be a content dispute. Please follow the steps at WP:DR. I see you have added a "citation needed" tag, but this is to show unsourced content and not to replace a citation. Additionally, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - just because one article is lacking in sources does not mean every other article on Wikipedia needs to go down the slippery slope of less and less sources. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, Tamravidhir, once an editor has challenged information as untrue, no editor can restore that data without providing an inline citation that directly supports the information being provided. Tags do not suffice. In general, attracting TheRedPenofDoom's attention can be an unpleasant experience, but in these matters he is typically right. Material needs sources, and your opinions about what constitute "sporadic" or "late" require citations to support your characterizations.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The only "complaint" I have about TRPoD is that he hasn't taken Tupac Shakur (back) to good article status yet. Other than that, this looks like a content dispute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom is blunt but a very knowledgeable and capable editor. If he is removing sections, odds are very good that policy is on his side when removing it. I suggest taking a different tact and engaging him, learn from him. Much of that cut info may be able to be restored if it was properly sourced, so your best chance for success is working with him, and don't work against him. Just ask "why is it removed, and if I sourced this, would it make sense to put it back?", and accept his answers for now. I know this is difficult at first, but it has some very good rewards if you do. He isn't unreasonable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This user has been vandalizing several pages asking for source and when the source is added, still he/she removes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcepen (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The above editor appears to be a sock of HofKal (talk · contribs) and one or more IP's. I have no idea who's in the right in this edit-war. But I have notified RedPen about Sourcepen and HofKal, and likewise AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

An admin has now blocked both ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:CRYSTAL and appointment of Catholic bishops

Currently affected articles:

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rainer Woelki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archbishop of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Current discussions:

• Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne#Woelki has not yet been installed and is not archbishop of Cologne until that time
• User talk:Elizium23#Archdiocese of Cologne

Users involved:

• Jamesbondfan (talk · contribs)
• Aa75253 (talk · contribs)
• 124.150.17.249 (talk)

Past discussions and affected articles are available on User talk:Elizium23#Appointment of Catholic Bishops. The chronic problem here on Wikipedia is that Catholic bishops are put into their offices before their installation dates. This is analogous to a Presidential Inauguration, in that the bishop does not have possession or control of the diocese before that time that he takes it. Unfortunately, the news media makes a lot of noise when the appointments happen, and less when the installations occur, and so the tendency is to report the news as if it has already happened. Further complicating matters are unreliable sites such as gcatholic.org and catholic-hierarchy.org which don't make the distinction. This is an intractable problem because it is spread out over many articles, over a long period of time, and many editors who aren't regulars. There aren't enough regulars available to patrol here as I've tried at least twice on WT:CATHOLIC to generate consensus. The last straw for me, which brings me here today, is a profanity-laden accusation of vandalism and personal attack by Jamesbondfan. Quite unnecessary and over-the-top. I have always sought to uphold policy and be civil in this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In your first example, at least, it says so-and-so "2014-present". I assume what you mean is that it's some later date in 2014. Maybe if the specific date were given, it would clarify things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The mention of a future bishop does not belong in infoboxes, lists, or succession boxes, or otherwise portrayed as current in the article. It's fine to talk about the appointment in the article prose. But doesn't it seem a little ridiculous for a space that's supposed to list incumbent officers to include a future date? Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What is being added is most absolutely not "speculative or unconfirmed" data. That's what WP:CRYSTAL refers to, not the misplacing of data - and that's all this is. The editors merely misunderstood the difference between the announcement date of an installation and the installation date itself. I don't agree with expletive-ridden replies, but you wouldn't have got one if you'd explained the issue to Jamesbondfan instead of templating him with a completely inaccurate template. Again, the problem here is not that the information was speculative: there was an official announcement. --NellieBly (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you would prefer, I can use the "factual error" template to be added, because this adding to lists and infoboxes as "already in office" is plain inaccurate. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How about if you enter the date the guy is scheduled to start the job? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what i did! i translated the cologne release into english and that's what i got! --Jamesbondfan (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)--Jamesbondfan)

It shows Woelki as the current officeholder. Is that correct? Or is the previous guy still in there? Or is it technically "vacant" at present? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Code of Canon Law: Diocesan Bishops; Code of Canon Law: The Vacant See. It's presently sede vacante. What happens is that the outgoing bishop tenders his resignation to the Holy See and it's accepted nunc pro tunc (now for later) and he continues as bishop while a search is undertaken. Then the appointment of the new bishop is announced, and typically this goes together with the acceptance of the outgoing bishop's resignation. At that point the see is vacant. The incoming bishop retains his previous post and his title of e.g. "Archbishop of Berlin" but his powers are limited to that of a diocesan administrator. See also, Appointment of Catholic bishops. Elizium23 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So if the guy has not actually assumed his new duties yet, then the article should say "pending" or some such. Like a newly-elected US President is the "President-elect" until he assumes office on January 20. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the infobox reflect the actual state of matters instead of a future one? Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The article should state, somewhere within it, that so-and-so is scheduled to take office later this year. Currently it doesn't, and if you just say "vacant" in the infobox, without an explanation, the article is uninformative. The explanation you gave above, about how it works, should be incorporated into the article as a generic explanation, and then add the name of the guy who is the "pending" officeholder. Then it becomes informative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the news can be discussed in the article prose. I have never opposed that. But I don't see the point of cluttering up what is supposed to be a current, factual list or infobox by putting two things into it. If it's sede vacante until the next installation then read the article to find out who is incoming! Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If he's not actually in office yet, he shouldn't be stated flatly as the office holder. But I don't see why he couldn't still be in the infobox, with an abbreviated explanation, so that the reader knows immediately what's going on: vacant (so-and-so pending). Something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Because an infobox is for current, concise information, not to cover all the possibilities. He has no powers of office yet. Do you also suggest, in the BLP of the bishop, to write both offices everwhere with (current) and (pending) next to them? Elizium23 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to inform the reader. If I want to know who the guy is, the word "vacant" without an explanation is useless, and makes Wikipedia look stupid. Rule number 1, which trumps everything else: "Try not to make Wikipedia look stupid." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So this was wrong, then? Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What about this stupidity from 2008? Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference: there's a much longer period of time between the appointment and the installation of a bishop (months, sometimes) than there is between the appointment and the swearing-in of a US Cabinet minister (hours to days) - and not even a micro-instant between the end of one Presidential term and another. But we shouldn't be templating regular editors in any event whatsoever for a good-faith mistake. --NellieBly (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What, specifically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"Installation of foo scheduled on" whenever or "installation pending" or similar are options. Again, though, I think calling attention to this at WP:MOSBIO would probably get some help. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: Has anyone ever tried to get MOSBIO to address all announcement/installation discrepancies in general? I imagine there are at least some others, and I think maybe having clear guidelines what to do with these matters might help. Maybe having uniform infobox standards for announcement and installation (or similar) could be made too. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that US Presidents are not a good comparison; a better one would be British (and other) monarchs, whose reign is dated from the day they succeed to the throne, even though their coronation will take a few months to organize. In practice the bishops appear to get their feet under the new desk pretty immediately, whatever canon law says, and I'm inclined to think we should generally ignore the fact they are not formally installed yet, on grounds of substance over form. Mind you there used to be cases like Spearhafoc, apparently appointed as Bishop of London in 1051, but never formally installed for political reasons, who eventually got fed up and vanished with the diocesan treasury, which he had been controlling. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But they don't. They still have their previous office to take care of. Take the common case of a priest elected as bishop - Wikipedia immediately dubs them bishops, puts them in bishop categories, gives them a bishop infobox, and they're not even ordained yet. They're canonically incapable of "getting their feet under the desk". And so is an incoming, transferred bishop. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blanket changes of English variants in violation of WP:ENGVAR

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

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

For the Canadian articles I checked, at least, Jaguar does not appear to be changing the English variant so much as ensuring they consistently use EN-CA. I am not seeing anything problematic in those examples. Resolute 14:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo, my justification is that all the articles I edited were either Commonwealth Realms, former British territories or any UK related product that used British spelling. Belize, for example, is a Commonwealth Realm and uses British English (there's no such thing as Belize English). I also edited Canadian related articles and implemented Canadian English into them (Ontario, Quebec, Totonto etc) so my reasons for this are 100% justified and correct? The policy I quote you mentioned is an automated edit summary provided by the script. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Canada and the Commonwealth, I have no issues, and I should have been more clear about that. Many others are clearly not Commonwealth Realms, and they clearly have no strong national ties to the UK. Belgium, for example, is not only not in the Commonwealth, but the article has always been in US English, and consensus is to leave it like that, not that you checked. Other obvious examples, include Brazil, Russia, South Korea, YouTube, television and World War II. Not only is there no obvious case to be made for changing these, but you didn't even attempt to make the case. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

World War II has always been in British English, YouTube was a mistake and I admit that, television I'm not sure why, even though it ties with being invented in Scotland I guess? And the other countries have no consensus? There's no policy saying that they shouldn't be in any variant of English? To be honest I didn't think anyone would even mind - it's only a few characters of changes (colonize to colonise for example)? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a very clear policy, it's WP:ENGVAR, the one you quoted yourself. I suppose you didn't read it at all if you thought changing the English variant was legitimate. I invite you to clean up your mess by reverting each and every one of your non-Commonwealth edits, and to begin a discussion about why it should be changed in the cases where you think it should be. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Some of the changes that you made do not seem to be supported by WP:ENGVAR. Most topics should stick with whichever version of English it was first written in. Only in cases where there are strong national ties is it appropriate to switch from one variety to the other. For example Belgium is not a topic with strong national ties to Britain and therefore would not use that variety of English if it was first written in American English. —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Belgium is famously "A country invented by the British to annoy the French" [6], perhaps UK English is preferable, and has the advantage that Belgium can now annoy the Americans too. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo Priest, did you try to discuss this with Jaguar before bringing it here? From my limited review I can see no indication that you even tried. It is best to try to fix the problems between the two of you before complaining here. GB fan 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

GB fan, I did not, as explained in my initial post. I realize it is somewhat unconventional to begin here, but it seemed to be the most elegant solution. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: After looking only at the top of your editing history, I've reverted you at Italy and Argentina, where a search of the history established in both cases that the earliest identifiable English variant used was U.S., and there is no association with the UK that would warrant the use of British English. As others have said, this is part of the ENGVAR policy, and you should have familiarised yourself with the entirety of the policy before implementing a script. Also, I suspect you are unaware of Oxford spelling, which is used far more on Wikipedia than I had expected. This is an area that is far less cut and dried than you appear to think; I don't think it's a good area for automated scripts. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I'm a A-Level student and I took English Literature and Language - I'm aware of Oxford Spelling. Trust me, I've read through WP:ENGVAR and I understand the policy. In fact I understand it better now - the script is also manual, I have to edit articles myself. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruption

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

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

• I'm trying to figure out why he changed Suriname, other than a desire to remove all USENG from neutral articles, which would be against policy. Jaguar, you've never been blocked and have almost 20k edits behind you, is there a compelling reason to not block you now? I hate to be the first, but you appear to be giving the finger to the community here by immediately going and modifying articles against policy while the discussion is ongoing. That is, by definition, WP:DE. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo, are you kidding me? Disruptive editing? Is that what you seriously think? I can't even believe I'm being threatened to get blocked - the thought of it is just like what? Suriname is a former Netherlands colony, it gained independence a few decades ago and by then some of it was known as British Guiana (neighbouring French Guiana today). I was going to do Guyana instead, but accidentally mistook Suriname for the British colony - they were historically tied. That warrants British Spelling. My recent contributions are not 'disruptive' and far from it, I'm just trying to place British English into its correct articles for a change, maybe I have made a couple of mistakes then, Japan, Argentina etc. Now I have been told that the original English should be kept in the articles I will happily leave them be. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Here is the problem Jaguar, you are going about this in a way that forces multiple people to watch your edits to catch things like Suriname and Suez Crisis, neither of which requires British Eng. Had they been started with it, fine, but changing the style of English on article that do not demand it IS disruptive, as is the way you are going about it. Some of your changes are obviously fine and even obvious, like Commonwealth of Nations and Greenwich Mean Time. Let me help you out a bit: If it isn't painfully obvious that the article should be in UKENG, like the two I've linked here, then ask on the talk page first. The fact that you mistook Suriname for a British Colony is the problem, your mistakes are the problem, you are erring on the side of "made the change" when you should be erring on the side of "don't make the change". I mean seriously, you made TWO such errors in the amount of time I took to type this paragraph, while it was being discussed at ANI. That is not a show of good judgement. I am wondering if Yngvadottir was correct above, and maybe the script should not be used. It is a convenient way to get in trouble and rapidly make lots of mistakes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • As has already been mentioned above, you (Jaguar) don't seem to understand the concept of Oxford spelling. The "-ize" suffix is not and never has been incorrect in British English, and is standard in publications ranging from the Times to the Oxford English Dictionary. You continuing to make these changes is getting well over the line into disruption. Mogism (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not kidding you Jaguar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you did not intend for your edits to be disruptive, but that is certainly the effect. I see that you have a long track record of positive contributions, which is in part why I find this so puzzling. Certainly, you know the importance of consensus when making controversial changes, especially when it was just explained to you.

I am also quite serious about you cleaning up the massive mess you have left. Hundreds of script based edits, many of which are no longer the most recent and not easily revertable, are a massive burden to undo. At this point "I will leave them be" amounts to "now that things are the way I want them, let's keep them that way". Once again, in the cases where you think there is actually a good rationale, make sure you actually provide it and first obtain consensus (after reverting your unilateral changes that is). In the case of Suriname, for example, the only logic was an implicit 'makes sense to me', and you even had the audacity to tag it to say that it should stay British English in the future. So once again, seriously clean up the massive mess you have made. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, let's be amply clear. "The UK was once involved historically with the subject" does not constitute a strong national tie. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• • On what bases was the variation of English changed form US to British on Sudan, Suez Canal, Suez Crisis, Poland, World War I, World War II among others. You have never provided an explanation or pointed to a past consensus as to why the variation of English were changed. One could say that these edits are nationalistic in their intent. —Farix (t | c) 18:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo and Farix are completely correct here. If you could use that rationale, then everything about America that is east of the Appalachian Mountains would use UK English, which happens to be where I hang my hat. I don't think you are intentionally trying to be disruptive either, but WP:DE isn't about intent. Whether someone is intentionally disrupting or just needs to be smacked with a clue bat, the end result is the same. In this case, I'm recommending the clue bat. You seem to have a misunderstanding of when to switch to UKENG and when to leave it completely alone. Before you do any more of this, you need some mentoring or something, so we don't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Suez Canal and Suez Crisis should normally be in BE it seems to me, on special connection grounds, as the British were the only major Anglophone players. I can see a case for Sudan too - essentially a British invention in its modern form, and a in effect British colony for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you see a case, but he didn't make the case, strong national ties are not obvious, there is no consensus and I would in fact dispute all of these. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:TIES states that there must be "strong national ties" to a subject before you can switch from one variation of English to another. However, what ties the UK has for Suez Canal and Suez Crisis are not that strong. Especially the Suez Crisis, where the US was heavily involved on the diplomatic front. If you are going to make judgements on which country has "stronger" ties, then you've already failed to understand WP:ENGVAR. Case in point, World War I, where both countries were involved, but there are some editors who want to make it British English on the bases that the UK has "stronger ties" than the US. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) @Jaguar: I wish this were true. Of over 100 edits, you only reverted 8. You changed South Korea back, but not North Korea. Minecraft remains at UK English, again with no explanation given, as does television. Suez Canal, Spain, the list goes on. You have also made no effort at justifying why you think any of the remaining articles you left where they were have strong national ties to the UK. Please check WP:ENGVAR to see examples; in short the connection must be incredibly strong and incredibly clear. Please don't stop with this token effort, but finish what you started. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is really not a bases to ignore WP:ENGVAR, however, there are far more articles that still need to be reverted. Remember that the key words are strong ties. Not just any kind of ties that are remotely connected to either the UK or US. —Farix (t | c) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very serious about getting some mentoring from someone who knows ENGVAR inside and out. What you are attempting to do is fine, but you have to realize that Finland might be USENG while Sweden is UKENG and the reason is that the original version was just written in that version. Neither version of English is preferred for these articles. In a few select circumstances, one version or the other is more appropriate but most of those are already changed over except for a few words that need cleaning up due to us Yanks editing Brit articles and vise versa. If you see an article that you think needs to be wholesale converted, odds are good that you are mistaken. You say you have started reverting, but as Farix points out, you really need to examine all the edits you have made, or maybe make a list and let someone else look and objectively say if it needs reverting. That is a very time consuming task, unless you have a script to convert UK to US English as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: I'm not going to get into qualifications with you because it's not really germane plus I don't want to out myself! However, your responses here suggest that you still have not realised that not unnecessarily changing the variety of English in which the article was originally written is part of WP:ENGVAR. In fact it is its essence: the guideline was developed to prevent destructive edit wars based on individual preferences. It does not matter what variety of English Sweden uses; Norway appears to have used U.S. English from the start (things are complicated by an import from NostalgiaWiki, but I find "aluminum" in 2010), and failing consensus on the talk page that there is a compelling reason to change, the guideline says leave it be. At World War I such an argument has been made on the talk page, and I've expressed my opinion there. I suggest you do too. However, the diff of your change at World War I provides what I consider a decisive argument that you should not be making script-assisted edits in this area, because apart from the issue of policy, you are not verifying the changes acceptably. You changed [[Momčilo Gavrić (soldier)|Momčilo Gavrić]] to [[Momčilo Gavrić (soldier)|motherčilo Gavrić]]. Stop using the script. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• We should not have to repeatedly come here and have you revert your switched from American English to British English (because you are only reverting article that are being brought up in this discussion). This is further compounded by the fact that you did not explained why you made the switch for each article, which means that all these switches are suspect unless they are blatantly obvious. It's one thing to say, "harmonizing language to established WP:ENGVAR", or "Novel by a British author, using British English per WP:TIES". But by the appearance of your edits, you seem to have taken the position that if the subject doesn't have strong US ties or has very week British ties, it should use British English. However, this is not what WP:ENGVAR says. —Farix (t | c) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Just floating an idea here...

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

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

Like --v/r - TP 20:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there are differences of grammar and word usage, too. (These are more evident with Indian English, which many of us not from that part of the world are less familiar with.) It's an imperfect world, and the encyclopaedia is full of more obvious errors such as apostrophe errors, we have an imposed usage with respect to quotation marks and terminal punctuation to prevent fruitless edit-warring over that issue, and links can do a lot to help the reader (as with billion, truck, football) but for precision and clarity, I think we need to recognise that the different dialect groups do differ, and mixing them increases the potential for confusion rather than mitigating it. We can't impose "world English" even if we wanted to. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should be concerned about those things, but it's relatively simple to write "truck (lorry)", "football (soccer)" or "billion (10⁹)" in places where ambiguity needs to be cleared up. I think it's an erroneous assumption that simply having the article written in one version of English is going to clue in the reader as to what meaning they should give those words, especially if they're read out of context, as is often the case.

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

We shouldn't lose sleep, no, and I sincerely hope no-one does. But the usefulness of having a rule in this case is that it resolves disputes. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is spot on. Unless the changes are blatantly disruptive. I read things daily that are a mixture of both forms of English, but if someone wants to go into articles and make them one or the other I see no issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 21:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• A gigantic trout to BMK for this outrageous suggestion—what will the good folk at WT:MOS do if there are no rules to be enforced? Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • They'd have time to take us all out for a beer! BMK (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to ban script use for a limited time

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

---

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

---

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I came here to ask on what rationale he changed Minecraft to Oxford spelling, and in what way the structure "in order to" violated the rules of that variety of English. This script needs to go back on the shelf and the editor needs to talk through the issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest just deleting the script. While it may be helpful in some respects, it yields itself far too easily to abuse and rash actions that most of us consider disruptive—such as this case. It is the hammer that is always looking for a nail. If a similar thing happened with AWB, they would have had their usage of that editing tool pulled. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I know I could be fighting a lost cause, but I must get this point out - perhaps this is being taken too far? Is there a possibility that we could be getting carried away with the problems of the script? As far as I see it, the script itself doesn't need to be re-evaluated and neither do I. I've already reverted the non-UK articles I've implemented the spelling in, so what is the point of these sanctions? So that I can never do it again? What if I just say that I will never use the script for non-UK and non-Canadian articles? I already have done, so why the sanctions? Will it get us anywhere? I will accept responsibility for what I've done, but I disagree with these threats of escalating blocks. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Syria, China, Egypt, Kenya, Belize, South Sudan, Russia, Television, Computer, and Personal computer are all non-UK articles that you converted but have not reverted back. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  Farix, did you check them? I have reverted all but three back! Belize and Kenya are English speaking countries and they use British Spelling! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  What about Personal computer?--v/r - TP 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  I've just reverted that one back. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Great proposal. Though I do think that he should be allowed use of a US English ENGVAR script to clean up the damage. (I strongly doubt he will go overboard with this one.) Oreo Priest ^talk 22:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  If you mean under your personal supervision for a day or two, then that would probably be fine, but not on his own. He still hasn't shown an understanding of the policy in general. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  I understand both the policy and all what you have told me. In a nut shell, stick the national spelling to their respective national articles. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  I can supervise him to clean up the damage, sure. I'm concerned that requiring to clean up the damage will lack teeth, and he'll shirk actually reverting any but the ones manually pointed out to him, and even then he'll skip some of those. It's what he's been doing so far. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is not with the tool, it's that the user doesn't understand the ENGVAR policy. His "In a nut shell" comment just above only confirms that he doesn't understand it. Given that, he should not be encouraged to change the variety of English used in any article, whether manually or with scripts or other tools. --Amble (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Using a script to change the variety of English is basically a bad idea. That should be done manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This seems like a good way to go to encourage the editor to learn ENGVAR by doing manual changes. BMK (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Robert McClenon. The proposed ban is a bit long, but it's only on script-assisted edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• FYI The changes to Television had not been self-reverted by Jaguar as of about two hours ago, when I noticed and reverted them. I then got curious, checked the source of the evidently unjustified and oddly incomplete (it was still "color" in most places) changes, and was very surprised to find that this example of arbitrary and tiresome AE>BE orthographic imperialism was due to an experienced editor. AVarchaeologist (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have no idea why Jaguar is making these changes but he definitely means well. Rather than a ban which seems rather forceful and bureaucratic given that he doesn't have a long history of repeated offenses, I simply suggest that Jaguar just avoids making such changes and we can all move on. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  This is why I didn't propose an ENGVAR ban, just a ban of the tools. If you don't know what you are doing, doing it faster isn't the solution. This ban will allow him to fix ENGVAR issues on any article, Wiki-wide, he just can't do it at the speed of sound. The alternative is to allow to keep using the tools, making lots of errors and end up getting blocked. This is the least aggressive way to deal with the problem. Also note that it is for a fixed time, not indef. He doesn't have to come grovel to get access back, it is automatic. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Mistakes have been made. That's enough for me to advise shutting this user's toy down for the year. Carrite (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  That's not very nice is it... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Use the opportunity to familiarize yourself with ENGVAR, and edit cooperatively. Clean up your inappropriate changes, which becomes more time consuming when others have edited the article after your changes. Do not use a script to implement changes which are likely to be controversial. Edison (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question Editing with a script is not a subject with which I am at all familiar, so this is clearly a question asked from a position of ignorance: Is the problem the script itself, or in Jaquar's misuse of it? Would the exact same script used by someone with better judgment be non-problematic? BMK (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  Even when you use a script, you are responsible for what that script does. If it screws something up, you don't blame the script, you blame the user. Here, the script made errors that he didn't check, PLUS the script is helping him make judgement errors at an accelerated pace. The problem is still Jaguar and his judgement, and removing access to the script may keep him from getting blocked or topic banned altogether. He still needs to learn ENGVAR, as his understanding of it is very, very flawed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

This comment shows that you still don't understand the scope of what you did. You weren't merely "changing a few bytes". You were changing the vary language that was being used on the articles. The reason for it? You didn't—and have yet to—give one and you were doing it on a massive scale. WP:ENGVAR is very clear that you don't make such changes unless (a) you get a consensus or (b) the article clearly has strong ties to the UK. Even when you claimed to have reverted all of your mistakes, editors had to repeatedly point out more articles to you. You only reverted an article when an editor specifically pointed it out to you that you should not have changed it. —Farix (t | c) 10:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Quite apart from the issue that you have been ignoring the essence of WP:ENGVAR, which is do not change the variety of English without good reason, you allowed the script to change a person's name in World War I. You were not responsibly monitoring the changes it made. I'm sorry for the emphasis, but you have been told this, and it matters. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR is a delicate and sensitive consensus. By rolling into town with automation, you are essentially cutting cookies on the front lawn with an ATV. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no one should be running a script to convert a large number of articles from American to British English or vice versa, hence why I think said script should be deleted outright. However, if it is not going to be deleted, it needs to be recoded to use some sort of white-list (for both users and articles) along with a popup telling the editor using the script that they are responsible for its use and that they should that there is a per-established consensus for such a conversion. —Farix (t | c) 19:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The script itself is OK, it's just that there are certain things in it that could be improved. For example "in order to" should not be deleted as this has always been used in UK spelling, and in some cases the script did not change "color" into "colour". With the script's creator's permission, I could have adjusted the script myself and optimised it. The script is widely used by other editors, I saw that I was not the only one who used it. Deleting it isn't the right thing to do. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar's cavalier and dismissive attitude is shown by "We are going too overboard with these idle threats of blocks and sanctions!" Please believe that you are not reading "Idle threats." I would certainly block a disruptive editor who refused to follow ENGVAR. Far too much time has been wasted in years gone by in pointless arguments over which version of English is "correct." Color vs colour, Push up vs Press up, and countless more. We do not want to revisit every such long-drawn out and pointless argument. Edison (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no correct version of English, it is essentially the same language however I have corrected my mistakes and familiarised myself with ENGVAR, thus I have stopped using the script for non UK and Canadian related articles since this ANI discussion has come to light. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

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

---

Od rance mate is inserting the same contentious text into multiple articles across Wikipedia about the recent airplane crash and not doing any other constructive editing. He's been warned multiple times, but is continuing the activity. I'd give diffs, but all the edits on his contributions page are the same thing, q.v.. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

He appears to have ceased - hasn't edited in 11 minutes. But these attacks are nothing new, since the first place most people go to when they have their own theories as to who did this and who did that when big events happen is, aside from Facebook and Twitter, Wikipedia. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:Kelapstick, just needs closing. Amortias (T)(C) 15:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That was just Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Runtshit casually exploiting the deaths of ~300 people to harass an editor he doesn't like. Next time, and there will be a next time, there's no need for anyone to waste their time issuing warnings. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Obviously conflicted edits to A2 milk

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

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

That edit did a number of things -

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

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

Whatever the arrangement with BC's employer, BC's original edit, edits since and draft article are all obviously designed to promote A2 Milk in general and the a2 Corporation in particular. BC should absolutely be held to the provisions of WP:NOPAY at a minimum and be confined to editing the talk page with {{Request edit}} templates. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Response: I am a consumer of A2 milk, which is now a leading milk brand in Australia, and am interested in the subject of why it is different to normal supermarket milk. The article on A2 milk on Wikipedia was a stub and flagged for poor grammar, poor construction and poor sourcing. Considering (a) the market share it has in Australia and its entry to the UK and US markets, and (b) the conflicting views among scientists on its potential health benefits compared with normal milk and (c) the range of news stories and serious television coverage it has received in New Zealand and Australia, I considered I could, with extensive research, greatly improve the article.

I approached it the same way I approached other articles I have completely rewritten and expanded -- among them East West Link, Melbourne, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917). The exception in this case, knowing it would be a huge task, was to arrange for a fee for my work. I have not set out to promote A2 milk; my intention was and is to present more information about it, its history and the scientific disagreement -- issues that have also spawned a book, Devil in the Milk by a NZ agricultural professor, and widespread media coverage of the milk and a number of questionable tactics by rivals who have lost market share. I posted a disclosure notice on my user page before replacing the shitty stub with my much bigger version.[7].

A couple of users objected to my use of Devil in the Milk and some primary sources (scientific papers) in the science section and immediately began a campaign of denigration and canvassing, labelling the article and its sourcing as "fringe", "weird", and the lie that it was "based on anecdotes and a few primary sources".[8]. (At that stage it contained more than 40 citations to news reports). I fully accept that I was not familiar with WP:RSMED or its requirements and was content to have that section removed while I reworked it with better sourcing. User:WhatamIdoing also intervened to point out that a couple of editors were misusing BRD: instead of deleting sections or flagging sections for better sources, they simply reverted the whole article. I also agreed with the removal of a section on digestive benefits of A2 milk, agreeing that anecdotal claims were unacceptable.[9]

Throughout the process I have endeavoured to be co-operative and collaborative. However I have encountered rising levels of antagonism towards me and my edits, particularly once it became more widely known that I had accepted a fee. This is all laid bare on the talk page, culminating in a personal attack by User:Stalwart111 which blatantly breaches WP:AGF. [10] That user has also demanded that I cease editing the article and offer suggestions on the talk page.

I have zero confidence in this system working because of the collection of hostile editors who are acting as gatekeepers.

On 16 July Stalwart111 removed a paragraph from the "background" section, then on the talk page requested "incredibly strong MEDRS sourcing".[11] Since then I have provided a string of high-quality sources to satisfy his request and finally a grab-bag of statements from a range of websites by Googling a couple of terms to demonstrate that the fact I added as background is widely accepted science. When there was initially no response after I listed those quality sources, I reinstated the paragraph; he promptly reverted it again[12] claiming that "consensus among others is contrary to your opinion". That was a lie: there had been discussion up to that point, either agreeing or disagreeing with the list of sources I had provided. Still no one has discussed what is a plain statement of scientific fact -- a fact completely supported by the sources I provided and typed out as quotes.

On 19 July User:Roxy the dog altered the wording in the article's lead section from "There is no consensus that A2 milk has benefits over "A1" milk" to "There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk". [13] This is a very clear case of cherry picking, and provocation: the statement, although correctly sourced to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is not an accurate and balanced statement for an encyclopedia. I started a new thread, pointing out that the EFSA review was just one of four reviews I'm aware of: two others said no such thing and referred to scientific evidence they found "intriguing" and worth further study.

In short, a number of editors on the A2 page have now become obstructive and are, I suspect, editing the article -- and blocking my edits of the article -- in order to denigrate A2 milk as a form of pushback against my edits. In the current version of the article I see nothing that markets or promotes A2 milk, or makes false claims, or presents fringe science. This is what others claim is there and as a result are questioning my motives. I say again: I am now promoting A2 milk. I have read WP:NOPAY carefully and I am convinced I am not bound by its requirement to edit the article through the talk page using them as mediators. I have been working on Wikipedia for many years, have created, expanded and improved many articles. This one, to me, is no different. It was shitty, and I can improve it. And I have not finished: I am still reworking an extensive section dealing with the conflicting science findings and the series of reviews of published evidence. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack - that's an assessment of your suggestion that while you've accepted a fee and have made promotional edits, you're not subject to guidelines related to accepting a fee and making promotional edits. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So help me here: what, in the existing article (the result of early collaboration and compromise), is promotional? Serious question. BlackCab (TALK) 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm. Not much - that's the point. We successfully resisted your efforts to turn the article into a glowing endorsement of the subject and a stinging rebuke of its competitors. But those efforts (and your dissertation above) demonstrate that you are incapable of approaching this subject in a neutral manner. To be honest, I'd have concerns with your edits even if you weren't being paid to make them - your agenda seems pretty straightforward, with or without a pay-cheque at the end. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If "we" had our "our" way the article would still be the shitty stub, which is what "we" (User:Bhny and User:Roxy the dog) reverted it to in a tag-team manoeuvre,[14][15] with a sham appeal to BRD. (Neither editor was willing to engage in meaningful discussion: Bhny immediately started his surreptitious canvassing campaign with misleading claims at two noticeboards; Roxy's contributions have been laced with sneering sarcasm.[16]). It was only the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing—who actually read my edit and reinstated material that was clearly unobjectional [17][18]—that took the article to what it is now. I accepted this. I accepted the removal of the "Digestive benefits" section. I accepted that the science section needed to be reworked. I made all this clear on the talk page. From that point more -- quite innocuous -- material was deleted; my subsequent attempts to discuss this and reinstate (a) a one-paragraph statement of scientific fact and (b) the fact that there is no consensus over the benefits of A2 milk have been met with obstruction, derision and abuse. I am doing all I can to collaborate. And Stalwart111's final little insult ("I'd have concerns with your edits even if you weren't being paid to make them) is yet another unwarranted attack on my good faith. Just examine my record. BlackCab (TALK) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Through following further links from WP:PAID, I have located a June 16, 2014 update to the Wikimedia terms of use pertaining—for the first time—to paid editing. I have therefore updated the disclosure notice on my user page. BlackCab (TALK) 08:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, if "we" had "our" way you would have complied with WP:NOPAY to begin with, proposed edits on the talk page and we would have avoided your initial attempts to turn the article into a marketing tool for your client. You didn't and we're here because you continue to believe those rules don't apply to you. And you forgot Jim1138, Second Quantization and an IP who all objected to various parts of your various claims. And your new declaration makes it clear you are being paid by a public relations and media management company for whom A2 is a major client. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have requested comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue: their new Terms of Use do allow for editors to accept a fee, so how do they view a situation such as this? Did they envisage that an editor who did so would consequently be subjected to such a tirade and a clear pattern of obstruction? But in the meantime I'll ask again, if Stalwart111 can just draw breath from his outpouring of venom and vitriol: what, in the existing article (the outcome of the collaboration and compromise achieved after the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing), is promotional? And can he please return to the article talk page and express a view on whether the sources I promptly and comprehensively provided in answer to his request support the paragraph he removed? BlackCab (TALK) 12:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, it's not a "tirade" or "venom" or "vitriol". You and your multinational corporate client are not the victims here. WP:NOPAY is very clear - "you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as [... a] contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes...)". You fit squarely into that category. Why do you insist that the rules don't apply to you? I've answered your question - it isn't promotional now. But we've all been subjected to long and repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with us. WhatamIdoing? reinstated only 17,000 bytes of your 53,000-byte promotional edit. So about 35,000 bytes of promotional material was removed by the "compromise" you were forced to accept. And I've removed more since. And you've been fighting 6 editors on that talk page ever since. And you openly admit you want to add more. Either play by the rules or don't; your choice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"I have requested comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue: their new Terms of Use do allow for editors to accept a fee, so how do they view a situation such as this?" You can accept a payment, but you are still required to follow WP:COI and WP:PAY. "what, in the existing article" The more interesting question is, if no one had stopped you, what would the article look like? We know the answer to that: [19]. See WP:COIADVICE as well, particularly If the article you want to edit has few involved editors, consider asking someone at the talk page of a related Wikiproject for someone to make the change.. Second Quantization (talk)

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

And obvious collaboration is obvious. I have accepted without demur the edits made early in the piece. Now a simple scientific statement has been removed and will not even be discussed, and a claim has been inserted into the lead based on a cherry-picked source. And I am subjected to non-stop abuse. BlackCab (TALK) 22:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BlackCab, you're a long term and productive editor, so I don't understand why you've put yourself in this position by accepting a fee for contributions. Your edits to this article have brought forward a quantity of potentially useful sources and contributed to a more detailed piece on A2 milk. Whether these meet MEDRS is a live content dispute on the article talk page, which is where it should be. And the article as it currently stands is certainly a more comprehensive treatment of the subject than it as a few weeks ago. Its current form (thanks to various contributions)is not overly promotional, or is within the bounds of what can reasonably be argued out on a talk page.

However, it remains that you have a conflict of interest in editing an article on a company where that company is paying you to do so. This edit, at the least, contained material that other editors rightly considered promotional and lacking a neutral point of view. Increased scrutiny of these edits is not routinely harrassment, but part of the stricter examination of potentially COI paid contributions. You have appropriately declared that conflict on your userpage, though I think most people would dispute your claim that you are under no obligation to promote the product. Your PR agency is not funding your edits from a sense of philanthropy and whatever your independent intentions, it would be their reasonable expectation that the article you produce would be in the commercial interests of their client.

So: the declaration is great and in accordance with one half of WP:NOPAY. But there is a strong discouragement of paid editing, which is what you are currently engaged in. How about you now follow the other half of NOPAY and propose any further edits to this article solely on its talkpage rather than adding them directly to the article? Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Euryalus. If the article on A2 milk is to be complete and thorough, it still needs to cover its history: how and why it came to market. This is essentially a section that deals with the science—the initial concerns that led to someone to decide to produce a milk free of A1 betacasein and the series of scientific reviews that followed. I concede (and have done so all along) that the science section (as with the digestive benefits section) was a bit ham-fisted, mainly because I was unaware of a Wikipedia policy on primary sourcing (the findings of researchers, even in peer-reviewed journals) on medical issues. In the days after uploading the article, I realised a more diplomatic approach would be to do just that: create a sandbox, drop the intended copy there and point to it from the talk page and invite discussion.

The problem now is that the hostility towards my edits and me personally have risen to levels that make any collaboration next to impossible. As I have mentioned, there are still two outstanding issues on the talk page that cannot be resolved because editors are focusing on the fee (and what they see as my compromised position) rather than the content: (a) an innocuous (but highly pertinent) scientific fact about the release of peptides during digestion of milk and (b) an edit that seems to be a deliberate negative twist in the lead, based on a cherry-picked source. Really, what hope do I have of sober, productive collaboration? I am on the receiving end both at that page and right here, of unwarranted abuse and a very clear lack of AGF. It seems to me my chances of progressing on the article now are practically nil. Wikimedia Foundation created Terms of Use that allow what am I am doing. Other editors need to accept that and work with it ... and me. BlackCab (TALK) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Being a paid editor does not allow you to draw unsupported conclusions and put said conclusions into wikipedia articles. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The collaboration process involves accepting the input of other editors and I have done that. Whatever errors of judgment I may have made in my first venture into paid editing have been removed and I have accepted that. Other editors have now ceased collaborating and are focusing on insult, obstruction and in the case of Roxy the dog[20][21] deliberate provocation. BlackCab (TALK) 00:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And still Roxy the dog persists in removing a {{dubious - discuss}} tag on the false statement he added based on a cherry-picked source.[22] That edit is still under discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 02:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And you keep edit-warring it back in. Nobody else agrees that statement is "dubious". You failing to hear what others are telling you is not the same thing as "still under discussion". Not a single person (here or there) has agreed with your suggestion that you should be exempt from WP:NOPAY or that your edits at A2 milk have been anything but promotional and tendentious. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal - BlackCab's paid editing experiment has been an unmitigated disaster. Nobody is suggesting their contributions prior to this have been anything but constructive and positive. They have comprehensively demonstrated an ability to contribute productively to a range of areas over the course of many years. But that seems to have gone out the window at A2 milk. BC continues to believe that the provisions of WP:NOPAY should not apply to them, despite having clearly outlined that they fall into the category of editors specified there. Despite the issues, I firmly believe that blocking them would be a net loss to the project. But something must be done, if for no other reason than the promotionalism and argument has now transitioned to edit-warring. I ask that BlackCab be topic-banned from the subject of milk, broadly construed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - My first reaction was to think that Doc James or WP:Medicine folks should be called in, but I see that was done long ago. Given the violation of WP:Promotion and an extremely argumentative display here and on the talk page, it's fairly easy to conclude that BC is being disruptive, even without the edit-warring. A milk-only topic ban is appropriate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Does the current article read as a promotion? Stalwart111 says above "it isn't promotional now." Is the article an improvement on its original stub? It covers much broader ground and is better sourced, so yes. Am I edit warring? I have twice reinstated a {{dubious - discuss}} tag on an issue that is still under discussion on the talk page. That's it. Am I argumentative? I have certainly argued my point on the talk page and on this page: that's the point of a talk page. Am I being disruptive? No. I have disrupted nothing. I am trying to collaborate, to resolve disputes on the talk page, but struggling against editors who have become hostile. A topic ban would be unwarranted. I am still seeking some meaningful, informed input on the issue of paid editing, which is now within the Wikimedia Terms of Use. My reading is that I am not promoting the product and am therefore free to edit the article. Others clearly disagree, and I think this issue needs fuller, reasoned discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 05:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from milk, based not on paid editing but on use of Wikipedia for promotional activity, which is already prohibited by policy. User's edits would support topic ban whether or not there was a COI; in fact, status as paid editor is rather superfluous to this discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I see no benefit to the project for sanction of any kind on BC, as once this drama is over I seriously doubt he will want to return to this topic. As a consumer of a2 milk, BC must believe in the benefits as having genuine science backing, (as so successfully promoted by those who gain financially from the market segmentation.) His disruptive behaviour and disregard for COI related policy and guidelines such as WP:NOPAY stem from the fact that he is acting "in good faith". As an extremely experienced editor with considerable writing talent, this first foray into paid editing and a scientific topic has been unpleasant, and this drama is the downside of his lack of understanding of the way we interpret scientific evidence. Nobody gains if a sanction is applied. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I fully agree with a topic ban. I regard paid editing as a pariah to this project. Blackcab does decent work in other areas and I disagree often with him on his views but paid editing is a BAD THING...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• On a side note conflicts of interest seem to be BC's biggest flaw as a contributor, the disturbing part is the singlemindedness to push their POV, I think that they can be contained but especially where there is vested interest we should be proactive more rather then wait for them to sneak in more whitewashing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:QuackGuru

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

---

I took a look at AN/I logs and see that this user has been topic banned multiple times for things like this. I made my initial contribution [23] to Acupuncture. QG was quick to remove the edits in a very calculated and tenuous manner. I reworked the submission with a better ref and resubmitted. It was removed by another user. After that I did try to reinsert the material but for some reason got an undeserved edit warring warning from User:2over2[24]

Quack started harassing me almost immediately. He claimed that I reposted poor sources against consensus and then went on and on about the sources. He then started hounding me on my talk page which lead first request for Quack to stop hounding me about sources on my talk page. He did not comply with this.

Quack next started destructively editing Myofascial meridians and continuing to spew his toxic Fringe Bias. For the apparent reason of revenge, he gutted an article I was working on. Things have deteriorated from there.

I don't like conflict. I have spent the last few months working on Islamic State (militant group) and related articles and I haven't had a single bad experience. There's certain bad actors that serve no constructive purpose. They thrive on attention and only cause trouble.

I would like to propose an immediate block and have this put forth for review for ban. - Technophant (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of edit warring, the harassment link doesn't look like a personal attack to me. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at my talk page under "Friendly Warning". I asked him politely and firmly to stop bringing source issues to my talk page earlier. - Technophant (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. So User:Technophant has added a bunch of primary sources here [25] among others and than reports QG when he brings it politely to his attention? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And looking further. In this edit they added content that does not appear to be supported by the ref in question [26]. Unless they come up with some good justification I am thinking a topic ban of User:Technophant from alternative medicine may be in order. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look that a ref Jmh649. It has a Title, date, author, and partial url. The partial url is a minor copy/paste error due to a flakey trackpad. I went and found the proper url and [27] the problem. - Technophant (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

3RR NB filing WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Technophant_reported_by_User:MrBill3_.28Result:_.29 - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the best description of what has been going on is WP:Wikihounding. - Technophant (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you're alone in thinking that, though. I'm afraid "going on and on about the sources" is an integral part of what we do at Wikipedia. It's a good thing, not a bad thing, and it's good that there are users who have the patience for it. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

This editor looks an awful lot like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. Exact same behavior, paranoia, assumptions of bad faith, attacking other editors, topics, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Brangifer, you know paranoia, ABF and attacking other editors are common as grass in this place, don't you? That leaves only the topics, which is hardly enough for a duck block. That's not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure the similarities are significant enough to persuade a checkuser to look. A CU has made a check at the Klocek SPI, but it's not closed yet, so maybe you'd like to add this account and ask for another check? Bishonen | talk 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

• Technophant, it's not appropriate to take your isues with Acupuncture to multiple boards simultaneously. Your complaint at WP:NPOVN is technically about "a cabal of users hell-bent in making sure acupuncture is completely discredited" [28] while this report here is about QuackGuru, but the meat of them is exactly the same: your dissatisfaction with the users opposing your edits at Acupuncture. Please review Wikipedia: Asking the other parent: It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. I'm not sure where this comment goes best, but, since you haven't linked to your other complaint at either of the noticeboards, I suppose I'd better put it on both. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

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

Trident13

Per the permission guidelines and the issue at large, I've brought my concern here for community review.

I've recently encountered a number of copyright concerns by Trident13 that I feel are egregious enough (at a minimum) to warrant the removal of his reviewer and autopatrol user rights. My first encounter of the issue was Trident13's close paraphrasing copyright violation at Soughton Hall. (Please see this Wikilegal post for addition information on close paraphrasing.) Upon further investigation, I found there are additional reports that demonstrate similar copyright violations. (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#LA_Models) Digging further into the issue reveals over 200 articles where Trident13 posted the content of copyrighted pages onto an article, used a NOINDEX tag or hid the text in comment lines, and then paraphrased the content. (See his move log. Most of the concerning pages were located in his userspace and then moved into the namespace. The majority are tagged with "into production".) This is an issue that has continued, despite being notified in October 2011. Some of these actions have been brought into question on COIN and Trident13 has not responded to the concerns in over a week.

In addition, Justlettersandnumbers, Jytdog, and Fuhghettaboutit have raised concerns of his failure to disclose possible conflicts of interest under the new terms of use. (See the COI case posted above).

There is a required level of trust and familiarity with our core policies to hold these rights. I don't feel that Trident13 meets these criteria. I would like to invite the community to discuss the proposal to remove these permissions and if any additional sanctions should be implemented. Any administrator assistance in the revision deletion of the affected articles would be greatly appreciated. Best, Mike V • Talk 06:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Not endorsing the proposal, just making it simple to snout count. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

But Wikipedia is WP:NOTAVOTE, and an issue like this doesn't even need support/oppose !voting the panda ₯’ 09:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

As proposed: In response to multiple acts of copyright infringement, the community removes Trident13's reviewer and autopatrolled rights. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Trident13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Support

• My understanding is that users with these rights should be aiming to make ths situation (copyvio etc.) beter not worse. If they are unable or unwilling to employ the correct use of their own edits then it feels improper that they are evaluating others in the same manner.Amortias (T)(C) 09:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why are we even discussing this? Yank the bits. They aren't prizes, they are granted based on trust, no discussion is even needed in a case like this. For that matter, if you have 200 cases of copyright infringement, you need to indef block him while it gets sorted out. Really, this is cut and dry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  To add: behavior problems are one thing and I'm always willing to talk it out with editors in those cases, but copyright has legal implications that can involve the foundation, and gross violations put a tremendous burden on the system, which is already overtaxed. If I had a list of those articles or proof of infringement in front of me, I would have blocked him myself, but I can't without seeing and verifying the evidence personally. If you have it, just do it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Going to toss my hat here, per Dennis Brown ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• No his rights shouldn't be removed. Just educate him about why he's wrong. That's what WP:AGF is all about. 117.177.79.37 (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Wikilink above. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since I'm not a registered user, I have to support him here. I don't think he's a bad faith contributor and we can't remove his rights after all the great stuff he's done for our project. 197.232.17.196 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Copyright Infringement

• Note As already stated, permissions are about trust, and I have removed them. The additional issue about blocking and other actions should still be under discussion the panda ₯’ 09:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I originally wrote the above as a proposal as that appeared to be the intention of Mike V. I apologize if I made things more difficult or cumbersome. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Per DangerousPanda I'll rewrite the prior proposal as thus:

Proposal: Trident13 has violated the community trust by committing multiple acts of copyright violations and as such is indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but if he has 200 copyvios and I can see them, I will just block him. That is one of those things that doesn't require a vote, as there is plenty of previous consensus on it. There are some COI issues at WP:COI but those don't bother me so much since the TOS for WMF sites recently changed. Copyright infringement is the most serious offense you can do here because of the legal problems and sheer expense to the Foundation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

...and we don't need "proposals" or !votes for everything. No need to set them up the panda ₯’ 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a ton of deleted contribs that worry me, but I can't do a complete investigation right now. I'm soon to be off to visit a relative in ICU, so pardon if I can't follow up for a while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hope all's well Dennis! the panda ₯’ 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Following up on Dennis Brown, I see this CCI investigation, Soughton Hall (check the history), Michael Hogben, and maybe some others. Trident has a considerable number of contributions, deleted or otherwise, so sifting through them will take a little time. My first impression (which may change wildly as I search more) is that there are copyvio problems but nothing close to "200 copyvios". Again, there are lots of edits to search through so that's not a complete estimate yet. Justlettersandnumbers, you seem to be following this issue closely. Can you point us toward the specific articles and edits which you found, beyond those listed at CCI now? Protonk (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

One example would be here. While the current article may not infringe on copyright, as it has developed over time by the community, the history still needs to be revision deleted. The articles found in the log above follow a similar pattern. Mike V • Talk 14:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, TheAirplaneGuy and John

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

---

The BS that come's from this guys keyboard 'What the fuck do you think you are playing at? Stand back and let me fix the article, I don't have time to do it all multiple times. And never accuse me of being a vandal. This was agreed in talk.' TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did you notify John (talk · contribs) about this ANI discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Yes he notified at WP:ANEW [29]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

He didn't say where he reported him. And then there's this condescending post:[30] TheAirplaneGuy has been here for 4 years, and John has been here for 8. Maybe there's a long-standing feud between these two? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you that this is the first time we have crossed paths... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that your signature is still pointing to your previous ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Also, the instructions at the top of this page are pretty explicit: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I was trying to drop a little hint to the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Par for the course I'm afraid. The following threats of unilateral blocking without benefit of ANI and redacting of editors comments were make in regard to an issue in which John is not an uninvolved admin. [31], [32] and [33]. If it looks like bullying... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the typical behaviour for an admin, but I was threatened with a block by John when I requested him not to remove sources, giving reason for the illogicality of his action. He chose not to discuss it but issued a threat to block instead - the exchange here Hzh (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@TheAirplaneGuy: do you have diffs or links for the alleged bullshit? Protonk (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked TheAirplaneGuy for a day for 3RR vio (not just against John) after coming across this on the article. If an admin wishes to unblock TheAirplaneGuy so they can participate here with the condition that they avoid the article for a day I've got no issue with that (if they ask I'll do it myself). As I said at WP:ANEW I've notified both of the discretionary sanctions in this area with no prejudice to action being taken as a result of this thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I notified John of this discussion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Should not the article be added to the list of articles under the discretionary sanctions?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Solarra for the notification and thanks Callanecc for the block. I don't have a lot to add. It was discussed and agreed at the article talk that the "reactions" section was over-stuffed with anodyne quotes. The article was tagged to reflect this. I started to work on summarising the important quotes this morning and was bloody annoyed to be repeatedly reverted by TheAirplaneGuy, in one case with an edit summary accusing me of vandalism. I said in my own talk how annoyed I was, then checked their contribs and saw they were blind-reverting most edits to the article, and were at something like 13RR for the day. Reported to AN3 and went about my business. --John (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Note that heavy edit warring is currently going on in the article, which involves at least four users (+/- 469 bytes reverts)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not that I'm volunteering, but maybe it's time for full protection and a few admin to babysit the talk page for stuff to add? The problem now is that an edit can get to 13RR (or even 6RR in the event that was hyperbole) and it go unnoticed because of all the other edits to that same page. 72 hours should be sufficient. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  The problem is that the information for the article is changing hourly, and in 72h the article will be hopelessly outdated. And asking for protected edit request will likely be unmanageable. I edited the article though and I am not in a position to protect it or to block anybody for edit warring in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  I've worked a number of these exact types of articles before with full protection. The only way you can do it is have good editors on the talk page rapidly building consensus and a couple of admins making changes to the article based on each consensus and nothing else. It forced people to use the talk page for each point, but it does require an admin or two always babysitting, around the clock. In some circumstances, it is the best way to deal with the problem, where POV and rapid edits are making it impossible to manage warring otherwise. If you block a half dozen people, you may end up making the POV even worse. I'm not saying this is the right answer here and will defer to your judgement, just that sometimes, hardnosed but monitored protection works, even if only for a few hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  If there are admins available to monitor the page, may be one can indeed protect it for 24h or so.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • If there is good cause to think it will work, as Dennis indicates, do it. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

    No way. I was taken yesterday to ANI for promising to block a single-purpose account for repeatedly calling the page protection (of the same page) "vandalism". If I protect it now, I will possibly be taken to Arbcom.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone edit warring needs to be blocked. There is no sense in effectively locking down an article about a major current event due to a few people. -- John Reaves 22:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental dichotomy is between those who believe, as I do, that WP is intended to be an encyclopedia, and those who believe that it's a 24-hour rolling news site. Block the latter. Eric Corbett 22:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support the position of Mr Corbett in this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's worse than people wanting to make Wikipedia a 24 hour news cycle. Some editors, like some of the world's political "leaders", are using this incident as an opportunity to say "the Russians are evil and must be punished" or "No, the Ukranians did it", long before we can be certain of either, or not. It's a classic POV platform, being misused in the worst possible way. Unless such editors are QUICKLY sanctioned EVERY time, some protection seems to me to be the only way at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• You're missing the point John Reaves, when the article is this busy, you might have to read through several pages to see the 5th or 6th revert in a day. Blocking everyone is problematic because you end up only blocking some of the people, leading to uneven enforcement. Sometimes, locking it down so no one can edit is exactly the right call, at least for a while, to bring sanity as well as force the editors to seek consensus on the talk page. We aren't cops, we are editors with extra tools, here to build an encyclopedia. Whatever stops disruption and improves the encyclopedia is the best move, and sometimes that is protection for a few hours, even if that pisses a few people off. Some of these people are just getting too excited but they mean well and are simply human. Blocking multiple people should not be the first tool you pull out of the admin kit. And Eric, that is exactly why protection isn't the end of the world when used properly for limited periods of time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good points Eric and Dennis. I hadn't looked at it that way. I suppose we have talk pages for a reason! -- John Reaves 22:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected based on the discussion above. I've made it indefinite, since I don't know how long we normally do for a super-high-profile article like this. 24 hours? 48 hours? A week? Please reduce protection immediately if you're familiar with our normal practice. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose full protection of this page. This is an extremely important and quickly developing event. Even now, the page is in a relatively poor condition. Make 1RR or 2RR restriction for the page if you wish. This can be done because tt falls under EE discretionary sanctions. My impression: recent work with this page was relatively peaceful. Warn or block edit-warriors if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• I also oppose full protection, this is an ongoing crisis full protection will make the article dated over time per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Information for this article is changing hourly, and within 12 hours, the article will be hopelessly outdated. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe now some people will start to realize just how ill-suited crowd-sourced editing is for current/breaking events. Imagine in the olden days of actual journalism and beat writers, if 50 people had to share one keyboard to write 1 story. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose full protection. A per-case PC2 may be used instead. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a thing with TheAirplaneGuy or other editors, but an actual event which needs many updates, see "Current Disaster" template on top of the article. So: Normalgirl (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cant the two just be topic banned for a week or so? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• With this notice at the top of the talk page - The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. - You would think that admins would have opted for discretionary sanctions against the offending editors, rather than punishing sanctioning all editor's.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Nobody is being punished. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Strike punishment, is sanction better?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Voting: Full protection of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

• Oppose This article needs to be updated quickly, it will be outdated in a few hours. And: it works, look at the page views counter, this article is the strength and core of the shrinking Wikipedia. Admins please accept not to having full control. Normalgirl (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think voting is appropriate here. See WP:NOTAVOTE. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Now, if you look at the other cases here, there are often votings at the end of the discussion. Even you actually "voted" here. And: its not the time to discuss several days carefully. Normalgirl (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We admins don't have "control". No admin has put in anything they thought was a good idea, only what the community clearly said passes consensus. And you are correct, this isn't about voting, it is about preventing problems by slowing the editing down to what is clearly passing consensus. Wikipedia isn't CNN, our job isn't to be the most up to date, just timely but more important, accurate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Only admin !votes would be relevant anyhow. I see NG's point about the normal functioning of WP, but IMO it's simply the case that countless users will be coming here seeking to question, undermine, or minimize mainstream reporting and opinion on this event, and as I understand it that's not what WP is for. I started off wanting to say weak oppose (i.e. restore semi-protection, with reservations). But the meta-public debate about perspective and biases that is likely to occur here is, I think, something that WP usually takes pains to avoid. That is supposed to play out in op-eds, letters to editors, comments on news websites, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to help keeping this special article up to date. Normalgirl (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

To clear up a few things: when there is a poll, admin don't get the exclusive right to !vote. Votes aren't counted like 10-4, etc. You need to read WP:CONSENSUS. It is more complicated than that, and sometimes discussion are decided against the numeric vote because the minority presented better policy based rationales. Admin are just editors like you, but we are editors that the community has vetted and determined we can be trusted to enact the will of the community using those tools (because it wouldn't be practical to give everyone the tools). We aren't super users. Admin generally are very experienced editors, however. And Normalgirl, we try to never use protection on articles except when we have to. I would expect protection to be lifted soon. It is ironic that so few people are bothering to use the talk page, which is odd. You are new and not familiar with our policies, which is fine (welcome, by the way, I hope you stick around!). The problem is when 100 new editors who don't know the rules are editing, it becomes impossible to enforce the policies because 100 people are reverting back and forth and arguing. We don't like protecting, but sometimes it is what we must do for a short while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Content dispute between User:Markdabner and User:Mark Heins on List of people who have run across Australia

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

---

These two editors have been reverting edits over the edition of Sarah Mycroft on the page. All I know is that her run is controversial. Usually in these cases the person is still mentioned, but the controversy is explained. However, both these editors have been going back and forth on the edition and have violated the 3RR. I warned both after the violated it and told them to discuss it. However, both persisted and Markdabner warned Mark Heins on vandalism in his 'attempt' to start a dialog which is not appropriate for a content dispute.

The first communication with Mark Heins about his 'controversial' addition was added by User:150.101.108.212 (from the email the IP user left seems to be Mark Dabner) to Mark Heins' talk page was deeply inappropriate and is the start of the no communication and just revert that both editors have done.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, this is a content dispute, and not the right venue for these sort of issues. However, I reported both users to AN3, I suggest we let that process play out. To be frank, the childish behavior of both of these editors is disappointing. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

IP 180.149.12.173

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

---

IP 180.149.12.173 has been adding large amounts of copyrighted and unsourced content to GMB Akash, unfortunately too quickly and persistently for me to have any chance to improve the article. Content is being copied from one of the subject's many website or social media pages, for example http://www.akash-images.com/exibitions.php and http://gmbakash.wordpress.com/profile/ (it's pretty evident because it's generally written in the first person singular). Can someone block this IP and/or semi-protect the page from IP edits? Sionk (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for copyright violations after a final warning. Chillum 18:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Bibliography of Aeolian Research

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

---

This has been tagged as an A7 along with the seven subpages thus far created. Copyright violation is also asserted on the subpages. This sentence from the main page is disturbing: "In 2014, a copy of the BAR was reformatted and moved from the USDA-ARS webserver in Lubbock, Texas, to Wikipedia."

I have no idea what to do with these pages. Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Correcting myself: the subpages have been tagged only with G12.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I tagged the pages. I tagged the main page as A7 because it is about an online bibliography that does not assert its importance. I tagged the subpages as G12 because they appear to simply be the bibliography that's been cut and pasted. Just wanted to explain my logic in case it wasn't clear. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming you for anything, btw, I just felt I had to notify you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the post at Talk:Bibliography of Aeolian Research which is contesting the deletion, it appears they are wanting to use Wikipedia to assist their users in contributing to their bibliographic data. I suspect that wikia.org might be better suited to achieve their intended goals; anyone else have a suggestion which can be provided for them to use? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I see three issues here. First, by my reading of Adelman v. Christy and Feist v. Rural, we can't accept a cut 'n' paste bibliography unless the original work is licensed to allow that. Second, there's the notability issue to sort out, and third, it's not clear to me what would prevent the article from becoming identical to a google scholar search on "Aeolian". If AfD find the topic to be notable, then I think the copyright and scope issues can be hashed out. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see no reason whatsoever why we should serve as--what? a conduit? a repository? Maybe Wikia, I don't know. But the subpages need to go, stante pede, and I also see no grounds to think that the main topic meets the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I've contested the deletions of the first few subpages. Based on USDA copyright policy, I believe that information was released into the public domain. If you find the the licensing information plausible, would you consider restoring the remainder of the pages? If deletion review is a the more appropriate forum, I'm happy to move the conversation there. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me that this those pages are in the public domain. But if they are I will propose deletion per WP:LISTCRUFT. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me from the discussion at Talk:Bibliography of Aeolian Research that the persons responsible for the existing bibliography are under a fundamental misapprehension - that they could 'host' it here, and retain editorial control. That is plainly not possible under Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

They're aware that they won't have editorial control. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is freely licensed, would Wikisource be a better fit? --NE2 04:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on my research and the conversation on the talk page, I think this has potential to be a terrific bibliography article. We've got a peer-reviewed paper on the bibliography that (to my mind) establishes notability, the material for the article is in the public domain, and the editors seem to have a good grasp on how to write the article to put tight bounds on material that will be included. I would rather the editors have started this in a userspace sandbox, but that's water under the bridge. The entries need to be wikified and formatted so we're picking up DOI links, etc. An author and subject index would be particularly helpful (and once those indexes exist the material should probably be arranged chronologically). So yeah, there might be a couple person-years worth of work here. At the end of that process, though, I think we have a slam-dunk featured list. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that that peer reviewed paper is authored by the database authors, and -despite its review- is thus not an independent source regarding notability. It may be a great resource, and the authors may be able to help wikipedia achieve its goals with their knowledge, but those aren't our notability criteria, nor does it make a selection criterion for which items get on which lists.... L.tak (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@L.tak: I take your point. However, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Notability_of_bibliography_articles: For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources. This discussion may take the form of a published standalone bibliography on the topic, a bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic or recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic. The fact that multiple published bibliographies exist in this domain is sufficient for the notability of an article along the lines of Bibliography of Aeolian Publications, which could then be populated from the public-domain Bibliography of Aeolian Research. That article could have, as part of its introductory material, a description of the several published bibliographies that it draws upon. Such an article doesn't look all that different from the article we have now, and we avoid having to figure out how many one- and two-paragraph discussions in secondary sources are required to establish the notability of a particular bibliography. Could we move this conversation to the article talk page? I don't see any particular need for admin intervention here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion could indeed be easily moved to a talk page... I'll answer here one more time to keep things together. If you read the article Bibliography of Aeolian Research, than it is about the Bibliography of over 43000 (!) items created by Warren et al. A general bibliography article Bibliography of aeolian research could be created maybe, but it would benefit from the present article only with regards to the second paragraph. Furthermore, a wikipedia bibliography article that in fact copies a list from a different source, instead of writing it ourselves, with our own discussion on relevant (meta)sources would be just "hosting" a different site. In this case, the problem seems also to be size: a meaningful bibliography from a encyclopaedic standpoint will IMO never encompass so many journal papers (rather than books etc) and would thus never include 43000 items... L.tak (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. I think this can be closed now. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposal for a topic ban on Septate

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

• • [34] (Misrepresenting French Philosopher Voltaire, that he called Hinduism to be "brutal religion")
  • [35] (Removed "Hinduism")
  • [36] (Removed Hinduism, and removed again even after reliable source was added[37])
  • [38], even after sources, he removed[39]
  • Same as above > [40], [41]
  • Removing Hinduism from pages - Religion in United Kingdom,[42], Religion in Belgium,[43] and many other countries, [44], [45].
  • Rapidly uses some fansites for invalid points[46].

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

All Religion in... (country) article where he has participated, he will try to push POV by inserting the images of mosques and removing the images of other worship places. He tries to hype up Sunni sect without adding any source.[47] These are his minor fixes[48], false edit summaries.[49]

Please see the recent history of these articles.[50], [51]

Except Wikipedia:NOTGETTINGIT, Wikipedia:OR, use of edit summaries for discussion and his gossips, what I hated most that once he will know I am offline for days he will start adding same misleading stuff to articles, he actually reverts to his version.[52] [53] I recommend a topic ban on all religion articles. Septate was blocked for edit warring when he was removing the images of Muhammad from Islam page. He likes to edit war but 2 reverts every 24 hours on many pages and he will never hear anything. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had dealings with Septate before [54], [55], [56] but a topic ban may be too harsh as he does make good edits and does respond constructively on his talk page [57]. Suggest WP:0RR or WP:1RR (and a 1 week period instead of 24 hours) instead to get him to use the talk pages more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of Bladesmulti's diffs are for edits made between March and May. Maybe it would have been better to have complained about them nearer the time they were made.

I did find one recent diff, but that was for a reversion of one of Septate's edits by another editor. The other editor wrote: "Reverted to revision 615527903 by Bladesmulti: I object to this removal. The editor has not made their case on the talk page and is relying on WP:OR and less reliable sources." Which was rather a strange comment, considering that all Septate had done was to move one sentence to a section that he/she regarded as more appropriate, and delete one cited statement that said much the same thing as another cited sentence in the section that Septate was moving the other comment to. I do not know whether Septate was right or wrong to make the move - but accusing him/her of WP:OR and using less reliable sources seemed uncalled for. If we look at Septate's edits that were being reverted in this case,[58],[59] you will see that he/she refers to discussion on the article talk page in his/her edit summary. The relevant talk page is Talk:Religion and homosexuality#Hinduism. I noticed that the editor who reverted Septate's edit did not seem to have contributed to this talk page. It does not look like Septate did anything bad in that case - quite the opposite.

My experience of Septate is that he/she has improved his/her behaviour, such that things that he/she would have done a few months ago, he/she no longer does. So it probably is not in the interests of the community to block him/her for doubtful edits that he/she committed a long time ago.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all please clarify which of my edits are lies or blatant POV or vandalism. Adding statement that majority of Muslims in beligium are Sunnis is not a blatant POV in any sense. I always provide soure whereever they are needed see Islam in France. Adding images to articles and organizing them in a proper way is not vandalism. I made edits to religion and homosexuality and ayurveda after a week when you stopped responding. I have promised User:NeilN that I will never accuse another user of lying but please tell me, wasn't it a lie when you claimed on talk:religion and homosexuality that we have a concensus on wikipedia that BBC is not a reliable source for religion. I was engaged in edit war on voltaire. I was warned and got the lesson. You just want me to block from editing Hindu related articles because I raise questions when ever Hinduism is mentioned inapropriatly. I always take that matter to talk page and so no reason for ban.Septate (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The dispute regarding Ayurveda and religion and homosexuality was resolved peacefully.Septate (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here that much of my disputes with other editor have been resolved and I am engaged in peaceful discussions with other editors as evident from my edit history.Septate (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It was not a lie that you should not use BBC as source on religion articles,[60](tagged copyvio) [61], [62], [63] and your gossips had to do nothing with that BBC link too. Another lie that you reverted after 1 week, I had reverted your edit on 4 July[64] and you reverted to your version on 6 July,[65] you don't know how to count or you are still as dishonest like you were before. Toddy1 have you seen [66] ? It is also correct that this user loves to make useless edits after removing or added content so that recent history on watchlist won't show major change in content. He has also abused the minor change option for making some horrible edits.

None of us can reject that if this user makes 100 edits then at least 90 edits have to be reverted because they are blatant lie or original research. Septate removes warnings but still his talk page is still full of it. Who is going to spend every single day in writing these detailed reports and gain nothing? User had been warned more than 20 times about topic ban or any other restrictions. Only a topic ban or restriction on revert(like NeilN said) can do something. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti - the edit you complain about 06:36, 6 July 2014 removing text, was immediately followed by 06:39, 6 July 2014 where Septate moved one of sentences deleted to another part of the article where he/she thought it ought to go - and I can see why he/she would think that was a better place for it. As for the other sentence deleted in the edit, it said much the same thing as the sentence already there in the place where Septate moved the second sentence to. There is nothing to complain about to ANI regarding that edit. It is a content dispute.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate claimed that he edited on that page after a week when he did it after 2 days. It is not hard to understand if you see some of his newest editing on Religion in Swaziland. Yes that 2nd edit was clearly useless and Septate made it only for evading the last disruptive edit that he made to favor his naive opinion. There is no content dispute with this user, because he has never really disputed anything but caused unnecessary disruption. If you revert his disruptive edits he will be mad on you.[67] What about his attacks on Peaceworld111? Septate appears to be faking that he has no access to books so that he can get a chance to remove content that he doesn't like. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, there is an auto-correction feature on my phone which sometimes causes a lot of mistakes. That's why I make a lot of minor edits and these edits are not limited to articles, I make a lot them on talk pages too. See the edit history of user talk NielN. So you can't accuse me of covering up my edits. When it comes to Religion in Swaziland, what I have done is inline with wikipedia's civility guidelines. See this [68]. User ludvonga is unable to cooperate with other users calling there edits vandalism. See talk:Religion in Swaziland which shows that his opinion was clearly original research. Now he has provided sources and dispute is resolved. So no need for false accusations.

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

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

I am inviting Toddy1, User:NeilN, User:Iryna Harpy and the administrator who is monitoring this to see my contributions anf tell me whether 90% of my edits are lies or POV. That translates to 1500 edits. You are clearly exceeding wikipedia's civility guidelines.Septate (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I also want to question regarding your claim that I always make unsourced edits on religion related articles. Please see Religion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Religion in Burkina Faso, Religion in the Republic of the Congo, Religion in Sierra Leone etc and tell me if they are unsourced. I infact organized those articles by adding graphs. At least 15 users have thanked me for my edits and it would have been impossible if I was a blatant lier!Septate (talk) 06

45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Septate certainly has been a problem in the past. I had experience of him two or three months ago when he was slow edit-warring to remove images of Muhammad. The noticeable feature of the way he was doing it was by using deceptive edit summaries to cover up the removal (and adding minor edits after the removal). See my additional comments in my report here at AN3 for which he got a 48 hour block in April. I thought that he would get the message with this, but he was doing it again here in June when he tried to remove the same image with a deceptive edit summary. I haven't seen much of him since then. Toddy1 says he's improved recently (maybe he would take on the job of mentoring Septate!) although scanning Septate's talk page, including deleted notices it, doesn't fill me with confidence that that is the case. NeilN says that a topic ban is too severe and 1RR should be tried. Perhaps. Unless Toddy1 is right, Septate seemed to me to be on the inevitable road of being indeffed. DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comment DeCausa. I admit that I was badly wrong when it comes to article Muhammad and that's why I was blocked. I admitted my mistake. You can't use those edits as a reason for accusation.Septate (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would not endorse a topic ban on Septate. As a newbie, he did start out as being 'overenthusiastic' and was not doing a good job on balancing POV, civility, etc. He has, however, always been prepared to discuss any indiscretions and has become receptive in taking criticisms on board. Had I considered that he was simply a disruptive POV pusher with no subject knowledge, I would have opened an ANI some time ago. The learning curve can be a difficult one for those who are particularly passionate about a subject, but that most certainly doesn't mean that he is irredeemable, and he has certainly been asking for assistance and opinions from other editors.

If he does slip backward into bad editing practices, it will become evident soon enough. A topic ban would be both premature and unnecessarily punitive.

Apologies to all for not providing diffs, but I've only just received this notification and am about to log out for the day. Should supporting diffs be needed to demonstrate Septate's willingness to work collaboratively, I'll be happy to provide them ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, also please explain, what you mean while saying that my talk page discussions are Gossips. Raising a question on talk page about some content that you feel is unnecessary does not make them gossips!Septate (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa, Septates edits certainly have been a problem in the past (systematic removal of Hinduism, rm of Muhammad pictures, edit warring). Unfortunately many of his more recent edits in June/July continue to be problematic. I will try to give some examples: Instead of removing Hinduism from articles [69] (16:45, 5 June 2014) he started to remove info about ahmadiyya (sourced) without a valid explanation: [70] 24 June 2014; [71] 13:17, 12 June 2014; [72] 12:02, 8 July 2014; [73] 13 July 2014 (ES misleading); [74] 10:52, 14 July 2014 (ES misleading); [75] 07:49, 14 July 2014; [76] 17:17, 16 July 2014; [77] 05:30, 16 July 2014.

Septates addition of images/mosques in several articles seemed to give undue weight to Islam (inappropriate size, position or number) [78] 16:16, 11 June 2014; [79] 09:13, 13 July 2014.

His changes of statistical pie charts try to single out extremely low percentages of muslim populations from "other religions" [80] 04:45, 6 June 2014; [81] 04:59, 6 June 2014 (not in source); [82] 10:14, 24 June 2014; [83] 08:41, 5 July 2014; [84] 15:47, 6 June 2014. These very small percentages are not even visible in the pie charts (UNDUE, POV-pushing?).

Other problematic edits include: unsourced addition of content [85]; changing the numbers in sourced statistical data to increase the percentage of muslims without giving another source, [86] 24 June 2014; unexplained removal of sourced statistical data [87] 17:10, 12 June 2014; [88] 13:33, 4 July 2014 (with misleading ES); [89] 05:00, 13 June 2014 and substituting recent with less recent sources or reliable with less reliable sources [90] 14:01, 21 June 2014 (with misleading ES), [91] 13:43, 30 June 2014 [92] 09:26, 1 July 2014 [93] 11:48, 16 July 2014 (with misleading ES). [94] 17:17, 16 July 2014.

At least one of his talk comments ([95]." 06:20, 21 June 2014) suggests that he might be editing to push his POV and some other comments [96] 09:22, 1 July 2014; [97] 05:59, 16 July 2014; [98] 06:52, 17 July 2014; may be interpreted as incivil or as personal attacks. Yes, Septates edits also include some constructive examples but the pattern looks disruptive to me. He seems to ignore the comments and warnings of his fellow editors (WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

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

When it comes to [99] 24 June 2014;

[100] 13:17, 12 June 2014; [101] 12:02, 8 July 2014; [102] 13 July 2014 ; [103] 10:52, 14 July 2014 ; [104] 07:49, 14 July 2014; [105] 17:17, , as already mentioned above I made those edits because I was unable to verify those book sources. When it comes Religion in UAE, it was my fault because CIA source mentioned it but I didn't realize it. I it was my mistake and I admit it. Dispute regarding verification of book sources is also resolved, see User talk:NeilN#Please take action. NielN has assured me that he will ask peaceworld to provide quotes from book sources.

You claim regarding 16 July 2014; [106] is baseless because I made that edit after a long talk page discussion. See talk:Religion in Russia#"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source. I am busy so I will explain your rest of accusations later.

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

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

Want to report User: HammerFilmFan

I wan't to report User:HammerFilmFan for removing my posts in debates [107]. This have happened several times i the last week. He's obviously following me around (stalking). I will not tolerate this.--Ezzex (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified HammerFilmFan of this discussion. You would do well to provide some diffs of the conduct of which you complain. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are a log of his edits in debates [108].--Ezzex (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless you're saying that every single one of those edits is evidence of your claim, you should pick specific diffs. Even if you are claiming that every single one of those edits is inappropriate, you should pick a few example ones to illustrate what you're complaining of and what administrators should be looking for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See this discussion earlier this week, where User:Go Phightins! wrote " Cognizant of the fact that you have been previously warned on this topic (very recently, according to your talk page), I am going to strongly urge you to make sure that all of your edits on that topic are dedicated to the improvement of the article rather than promulgating or refuting an ideology. If you are incapable of this, my suggestion would be that you disengage from the topic area so as to avoid being blocked, which will likely happen very quickly in an area with discretionary sanctions in place." An example edit is[109] "{{pov|It looks like its written by IDF. Much jewish crap. Should not use operation-titles}}" - when this edit was cited to Ezzex his reply was "which it is". Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It still is.--Ezzex (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So it should balanced with Hamas crap? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I started the discussion earlier this week about Ezzek and ended it with asking him to just "tone it down" a bit, that was all. this is not toning it down and I would ask that he not readd this. It is completely off topic and a personal attack. English is a 2nd language, but if he can't "tone it down" to where he isn't attacking other editors and using the talk page as a forum, then he should be warned and then blocked as needed. --Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it really OK to use expressions like "Jewish crap" on WP and refuse to withdraw it? I don't think it ought to be OK.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So you think it's ok for this creep to remove other users post and replies??--Ezzex (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, when those users are Hamas lapdog creeps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. As has been stated, the user was previously warned about racist remarks, agenda, staying on topic, etc. My edit summary when I removed the totally off-topic and intentionally provocative remark will be my comment here. Hopefully he will be constructive in the future. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ezzex has been around for about seven years, and early on established himself as an Israel-hater, so don't look for reform anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Strong accusations from a flag waving idiot.--Ezzex (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Look who's talking. Some of your first edits, seven years ago, were anti-Israel. This, for example. How you've stayed under the radar this long is hard to figure. But you've drawn a little too much attention to your activities now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So anything that may be considered to be anti-israel is forbidden?--Ezzex (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've reported you for making personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reporting user Middayexpress

I would like to report the user Middayexpress for always updating false info on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shukran_Hussein_Gure and always removing the correct updates that others add onto the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talk • contribs) 14:44, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

I've notified him. Do you have any relationship with Shukran Hussein Gure ‎and can you explain why you think File:Shukran Hussein.png is copyright free? It's identical to File:Shukran.png which was deleted earlier this week by User:Mike V. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Shukran is a close friend of mine and my representative in the kenyan parliament.The information provided by the user Middayexpress is somehow false,inaccurate and very short.As of the picture,the photo is her real photo with no any copyrighted material.For more of the said dispute the following can be use as a resolution center for facts http://www.shukran4garissa.com/ together with http://www.parliament.go.ke/plone/national-assembly/members-of-the-national-assembly/members/47884553

I note that Middayexpress called Ja'afar Aden a sock in their edit summaries, without specifying whose sock they are supposed to be, so I would request some clarification. On the other hand, it does appear as if Middayexpress' version of the page contained material that fell short of WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request the user Middayexpress to be restricted to making changes to this page,if he/she does not respond to the allegations against him/her.

The Ja'afar Aden account is a WP:DUCK sock of 2001:848:0:6600:f878:b6d6:3c46:bacf. He has been disrupting the Shukran Hussein Gure page, adding identical original research using both accounts ([110], [111]). He has also twice added a copyrighted image to the page, initially claiming that the File:Shukran.png in question was his own work (the Ja'afar Aden account uploaded it, and the 2001:848:0:6600:f878:b6d6:3c46:bacf shortly afterwards added it to the page). The file was inevitably speedily deleted, so he attempted to re-add the same copyrighted image today as File:Shukran Hussein.png, with the new claim that the subject had given permission to use it on her official website. In reality, the only statement on copyright on the provided website link indicates that the material is © Copyright 2012 - 2014 [112]. This file was thus speedily deleted as well. Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't a sock, per WP:SOCK. That is an IP that finally registered. That IP has never been blocked, so he wasn't avoiding scrutiny, just registering, which is something we normally encourage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

He wasn't an ip editor (that's a mobile device number) nor did he just create that account, as his contributions show [113] [114]. He has also now just admitted above to having a conflict of interest vis-a-vis the subject ("Shukran is a close friend of mine and my representative in the kenyan parliament"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on much of anything else, that's an IPv6 address, which is announced on the contributions page itself. You don't HAVE to edit from a mobile device to have one. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it may have been a Mobile IPv6. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is still an IP address, albeit one which shouldn't change much. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, an IP address linked to a mobile device. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I used the said ip because i was not logged in in that case.However after i noticed,i logged in continued to make the changes.It is interesting to note that all the changes i made were correct and made to make sure we maintain the right to information to the audience unlike yours.

Actually, I didn't make any changes. I simply reverted your original research and successive false copyright claims. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no any false copyright claims,it was just a misunderstanding.To revert changes is ok but unless the changes being reverted to are correct and trustworthy.For example there is no need to provide an arabic name of the person and no need to provide her ethnicity.

Shukran is from the Ogaden Darod clan, an ethnic Somali clan that traces descent to the Yemeni patriarch Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti. Surely you already knew this as her self-described friend. As for her Somali ethnicity in general, it certainly is relevant per WP:CATEGRS ("Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people"). I also fail to see how claiming that the file was your own work when it isn't is a misunderstanding. Middayexpress (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Shuja'iyya massacre

Shuja'iyya massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could some of the admins sort the mess that going on this article

1.Article that created to push one sided WP:POV which probably also violation of WP:ARBPIA

2.Misplaced speedy deletion tag that probably shouldn't be placed as its not a vandalism of course and removal of it not by admin(while edit waring)

3.Multiple people broke 1RR and probably 3RR

4.Several WP:DUCKs that try to turn it one sided POV but to the other side --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX.

• Its a mess, I previously blocked one editor for blatant blanking, and have now removed the G3 tag, as its clearly not vandalism. That said, the remaining editors on the article are failing to maintain a neutral POV, (The editor I blocked was trying to flip the POV the other way, but being much more disruptive than the other side) the article really needs some neutral editors to help out, and possibly a trip to WP:AFD. Monty₈₄₅ 16:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism includes creating an article with "obvious misinformation" which this article has had from the start. The creator of the article was recently blocked by Admins for edits related to the subject of this article and he/she also states explicitly on his/her page information that shows that he/she has a WP:COI with this article. The sources quoted were far from WP:RS and the article appears to be propaganda about news, not an encyclopedia piece. I explained in more detail on the talk page why it should be speedy deleted. There were also many people going back and forth with propaganda type edits but none of them addressed the core issues. Even the title is propaganda and undermines neutrality and facts. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Want to report User: Drmargi

Kitchen Nightmares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to report User: Drmargi for blatantly harassing new editors making comments in the Talk:Kitchen Nightmares page, and deleting their comments without so much as shred of proof. Constructive posts and suggestions have been deleted with the new editors being called names and made scapegoats for past problems with the page. This editor also has a pattern of visiting other editor's pages to push his or her agenda on this page.58.168.101.160 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This IP has previously posted multiple times to Talk:Kitchen Nightmares using multiple IPs, from the 58.168.x and 120.14x pools, both of which are allocated to Telstra BigPond, an Australian ISP. He is thought to be a sock of Roman888, a banned editor. Drmargi warned me recently on my talk page that he was back.[115] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me introduce Roman888, a community banned user and serial IP sockpuppet. Every so often, he turns up, starts a fuss at the Kitchen Nightmares articles, is called on his nonsense and disappears. Pay him no mind; he'll get bored soon. --Drmargi (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me state for the record and on behalf of all new editors that have been unfairly blamed for Roman888's past transgressions, that this unfair blatant harassment is not productive and DrMargi has been seen deleting new editor's posts using the pretext that they are a sockpuppet or disruptive editor. Drmargi is also seen canvassing other people's talk pages and accusing new editors of being this Roman sockpuppet. It is in the interest of other new editors that Drmargi is to be reprimanded for his or her abusive behaviour to other new editors.58.168.101.160 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The above statement is technically known as a "non-denial denial". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is classic Roman888. Notice he's made no effort to actually edit the article. He never does, just stir the shit on the talk page. The from there, he rapidly accelerates the drama. He has a sizable collection of socks and suspected socks in this IP pool, and should be accorded as little attention as possible. --Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest 58.168.101.160 is this in the same manner that youve been canvassing editors talkpages to ask them to look into Drmargi's behaviour. Amortias (T)(C) 17:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Amortias, this is what he does every time he turns up. He leaves some post or another moaning about Kitchen Nightmares (never making an effort to actually edit the article), is called out as Roman888 (always transparent, because of the technical data AussieLegend notes above, always geolocating in and around Sydney) and then the drama begins as the ducks quack in legion. As I noted at the SPI filing, this thread is a new flourish but right in character, as is the noted tendency to redirect attention away from evidence against him by drawing attention to another user, usually me. This thread is a waste of time, editor effort and bandwidth. --Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if I am complaining on other editor's talk pages, it doesn't distract from the manner this person has been making baseless accusations against new editors. Plus this Drmargi has the guile to post on people's pages his or her suspicions of that editor being a sockpuppet. Look as his or her latest posting on Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares. So where is the evidence and fairness in all of this?58.168.101.160 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, and who are you to make that assumption. Do you pronounced that all people are guilty, especially new editors? -- 58.168.101.160 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 20 July 2014

Each time you posted here 58 there was a big yellow box stating that you MUST inform DM about this thread. You have managed to ignore it so I have informed DM. The fact of the matter is that a) you have provided no evidence to back up your accusations and b) this does not belong here and it should be closed ASAP. If you have a problem you should file a WP:RFCU. MarnetteD|Talk 17:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't need to inform him or her about this noticeboard, seeing this editor will find a way to this noticeboard. Its this person's suspicious mind that leads him or her to make baseless accusations about new editors in other people's talk pages and noticeboards.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to inform him or her about this noticeboard. If you're going to participate as a constructive, collaborative editor, that means following guidelines—including the one that says to notify any editor reported here about the report. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All right if you say that is so, then I admit I was wrong there. There is no ulterior motive in not informing Drmargi about this noticeboard thread as suggested by the other editor. All I want is that Drmargi is censured for his or her actions.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't say you were guilty of anything, I only said your comment waa a non-denial denial. But if you've got a guilty conscience, well... And it is kind of odd that Roman's IP socks seem to emanate from Sydney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So are you going to accuse all new editors with Sydney IP addresses of being sockpuppets. How silly is that assumption and this is why that Drmargi has that other editor User:AussieLegend believing the same baseless accusations.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had to deal with you before.[116] You change IPs to suit your needs. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please also notice that Drmargi will always canvass User:AussieLegend's talk page and who will be swayed by his or her baseless accusations.58.168.101.160 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI filed at [117]. Hopefully we can put this to rest soon, and close as MarnetteD suggests. --Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you see what I am getting at? Don't like someone's post, put a sockpuppet investigation and abusing the the SPI process at the same time.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

SPIs can prove people innocent, too; if you're not Roman888, you really have nothing to worry about. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No: SPIs don't address IP addresses in any technical sense. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Although he's blocked now, I want to make one last point, just for the record: notice Roman never explicitly denies who he is, but hedges around it. As soon as he pops up, I immediately begin referring to him as Roman on the KN talk page, and he never denies it. He just gets into this sort of snit, and plays his games. --Drmargi (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• IP blocked for a little while. After comparing with some of Roman's earlier whines on the talk page, it seems pretty clear to me (from tone and poor grammar) that this is the same editor. If they return to that talk page, we can always semi-protect it. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! His grammar is a dead give-away. He's Malaysian, so English isn't his first language, and it shows at times. He didn't start socking until he relocated to OZ. There's a copyvio case against him somewhere, and Moodriddengirl and her team spent hours cleaning up after him on Malaysia related articles, in addition to the KN/RKN messes. Unfortunately, he'll probably hop to a new IP sock shortly. His tenure at the latest one is about as long as he lasts before he hops again. --Drmargi (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Although 58.168.101.160 is blocked, the editor is likely to return under another IP, as he did after his last edits using 58.168.51.144 were reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Having dragged this here, the sockmaster has cleverly raised awareness of his behavior, so he'll be on a lot more users' radar now. And with the sockmaster having been banned and not merely indef'd, any edits he makes are subject to removal on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou, this is better. Shabratha (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 full protection

I believe this discussion was prematurely closed and I am reopening it. I believe that @Nyttend misused his powers in fully protecting this article and THEN making massive changes to the article without evidence of consensus for those changes. There was simply far too much cited material deleted in one single edit to say that there was clear consensus for removal with respect to all of that. If one is going to fully protect an article, one should either recuse oneself from editing or at at a minimum restrict oneself to clearly non-controversial editing. After the community objected to one of the elements of the removal, Nyttend put it back, but I object to the idea that we have to muster on the Talk page community consensus to undo, one by one, every element of Nyttend's edit. The Talk page is already difficult to use because editor traffic is being diverted off the article itself by the protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian fails to observe that I removed it because of agreement at the talk page; I took no actions (aside from housekeeping such as adding a period) at the article without consensus at the talk page. He also takes this restoration as me being forced to do something, ignoring the fact that I removed it simply for space reasons (too many images were present) and that I promised I'd put back if anyone could suggest a good place to put it. Brian's made this baseless accusation here and at the article's talk page; making serious accusations without solid evidence is considered a personal attack. He might also want to start complying with WP:GBU, If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. Nobody's said anything of the sort at my talk page, and all I've seen of Brian's words are implying or (as here) directly accusing me of involved editing. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't just about you, if it were, I would have titled the section with your name. I also don't agree with the admin who closed the earlier thread on this page about the article without giving the community more of an opportunity to weigh in. If you wanted this dealt with on the article Talk page why didn't you respond to me when I started the "Full protection should not be applied" thread? Why did you put that image back if you were acting on consensus when you removed it? You apparently don't think consensus is required to remove large amounts of material if, in your opinion, the removal is warranted for "space reasons". Well I'm of the opinion it most definitely IS required when so much of what you removed is evidence that incriminates the Kremlin. Are you prepared to go line by line through your editing with me and point out to me, for each line, where you found your supporting consensus? In other words, I'd like to see you back up your claims of consensus in detail because I don't believe they are true.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Anyway, the page is back to semi. [118]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The 05:11 comment by User RGloucester about "deleting the "whole mess" seemed to tip the balance, but then when Nyttend saw the comment by Isaidnoway at 05:16, he was wholly convinced. There were protests 13 minutes later. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Brian, you complain about the talk page being difficult to use, but now that the same traffic is back to editing the article, IT is difficult to use, so that argument is invalid. So is the argument that people disagreed. People always disagree with full protection because their edits are right and everyone else's edits are wrong, and full protection always gets protests from some. The purpose in using it is not because it is popular, but to prevent abuses. Your claim that he made massive changes is unfounded. All edits made were based on consensus from the talk page from my observation, and the fact that material was added back demonstrates this. I would also note that protection was lifted improperly. As this article falls under WP:ARBEE, I'm wondering if an admin needs to implement 1RR. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"to prevent abuses" like what? Editing against consensus? Because that's exactly what full protection enabled here. How does some of that material getting added back after the community complained about its removal demonstrate that there was consensus for its removal in the first place? It demonstrates the exact opposite: it shouldn't have been removed in the first place, especially by the same party who just went and locked down the article! It is absolutely not true that there was consensus for all of those changes. Show me the consensus to remove "Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew," just to take an example. Would you care to count all the citations that were removed in that one single post-lockdown edit I linked to?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian, it means he made an edit according to what he thought the consensus was, people complained, he fixed it. Admin do the best we can, that doesn't mean we don't make errors. If an admin makes an error and WON'T fix it, then complain. The way you describe it, Full Protection is always abuse, so all this discussion seems pointless. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it was not fixed. A 105K article was cut down to 82K in one fell swoop, and you call a 0.6K add back a fix? Do I also think full protection needs a very good reason? Yes, I do, I shouldn't have to apologize for that when Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a reason, you just disagree that the reasoning met the threshold. The amount of cut isn't the issue, the content is. If mistakes were made, you only had to say so. I was working the page, I would have looked at it, or others who were patrolling. A number of admin were patrolling, so no editor was getting ignored. Keep in mind, most of the time when an article is full protected, admin walk away until a consensus is found, as the protection is over a single issue. In this case (and similar) there has been at least one admin around helping out, doing the best they can. I know because I've been one of those admin for many hours last night and today. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Would the removal of full protection without discussion fall under WP:WHEELWAR? I'll formally notify User:Lowellian as well as pinging him here. --John (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection was always intended to be limited in duration, not forever, and there was suggestion on the talk page of specifically 12 hours. I waited 20 hours before unprotecting. Even the admin who protected the page in the first place, User:Nyttend, defended my action further below in this page, writing: "Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for." Furthermore, there was discussion: extensive opposition to the full protection by many editors raised on the talk page and here on WP:ANI, to whose concerns I was responding. I did not wheel war; I allowed protection, intended to be temporary in the first place, to lapse after a period of time. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • It isn't wheel warring, it was just a really bad decision, and frankly, done in an arrogant way as he just waltzed in and unprotected after not working the article previously. We at least had a discussion on protection, even if many disagreed with the conclusion. His solution was just to start blocking people, something we've been trying to avoid. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The really bad decision was full protection in the first place, a decision made quickly with very little discussion, over significant opposition, and one that punishes all editors, most of whom are not disruptive, and which is against the spirit of Wikipedia, which distinguishes itself from other encyclopedias on the principle that its articles are editable. Re: "after not working the article previously": That is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • It seems obvious to me that protection is better than blocking. Surely it is that simple? --John (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • While that seems obvious to you and I, not every admin agrees with that. Blocks are cheap and easy plus you get to walk away. Protection is hard and requires you are willing to help others. From an editor retention perspective, protection is an obvious choice. People get frustrated, revert too much, human nature and all that. Protection removes the temptation and forces cooperation. But you already knew that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Lowellian didn't just "waltz in". Unlike you, he first participated in the thread I started calling for protection to be lifted. My I point out that POLICY says "persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others"?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, waltzed in. Protection review is at WP:RFPP or even at WP:AN, with the whole goal of getting uninterested eyes on it. As an admin, I can assure you it was inappropriate by any measure. That it worked to your advantage is meaningless in regards to admin expectations. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet you just complained about "uninterested eyes" coming to the article when you counted it as a stroke against Lowellian that he hadn't previously "work[ed] the article," did you not? There was also already a thread here on this AN where editors had objected to the protection before Lowellian lifted it. As a non-admin, I can assure that it was entirely appropriate to lift full protection off an article that the community never wanted fully protected, especially when the party who applied that protection is intentionally or unintentionally making controversial and disputed edits while under protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course you agree, that is what you wanted to happen. My point is that a contentious lifting of protection is supposed to happen at a public board where the public can opine. This isn't my opinion, this is policy and why the boards exist. It is flatly improper to do it the way he did for a contentious unprotect. I'm talking about a policy issue, not just about getting your way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"public can opine" Yes, so why weren't opinions solicited before protection was applied? And more importantly for the extensive changes that were made while the article was under protection? Why was the "vote" above, terminated before it even got going? Go over to the article Talk page and announce an opinion call on whether to fully protect and keep that open for 24 hours. If this isn't about "getting your way" then back off and let the community weigh in. Until then, what I quoted to you out of Wikipedia's protection policy should govern.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a public discussion Brian. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, there was not public discussion more extensive that the discussion you dismiss, that being the discussion that preceded and supported Lowellian freeing up the article. This could be settled if you'd give up your admin prerogatives and agree that henceforth the community will be invited to opine on the question (an invitation that remains open for 24 hours) before applying full protection and the admin corps will abide by the verdict. Why is it that throughout this thread the only party that has quoted Wikipedia policy on page protection is myself?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian, you are being obtuse and I just don't have time for it now. Even to suggest waiting 24 hours to protect an article just shows you have no clue how policy works here, and there are more productive things I could be doing, so I will. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have "no clue" how policy works around here, yet I can quote it and you can't? I've been editing Wikipedia longer than you have but in your books I just fell off the turnip wagon? If it is such an emergency to slap full protection on this then why aren't you? You've lost a couple precious hours here already! As near as I can tell, you aren't doing so because ultimately you know that there is a legitimate disagreement here, unlike most cases of page protection. As such, the community has a role here.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• @John: If you are taking fifty different editors which will make a few edits each, that adds up to a lot. When you fully protect the article because of two editors, you severely impede improvements. You might not be able to see that as well because you are a sysop, but it is true. Dustin (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Anything but full protection for this article right now is just bone-headed. Not only does the enormous amount of traffic make it basically impossible to edit properly, but it also causes problems when editors edit-conflict and then in the course of solving it delete other information. In addition, these NEWS magnets attract all kinds of...well...unencyclopedic information. I understand that regular editors don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions, but when it comes to these current events, it's the best thing to do--I speak from experience, and I have about as much as John. But what bothers me most (since the article and the talk page have attracted a number of experienced and trustworthy editors) is the cavalier attitude of Lowellian, who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away. I support full protection for a couple of days. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm a regular editor and I don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions. BUT, I like even LESS having to police the article and deal with a horde of clueless IPs, SPA accounts, battleground warriors, sleeper sock accounts and other disruptive nonsense. Which is what has happened with EVERY article related to the Ukrainian conflict, what has already happened to this article and given that this topic is getting a lot more international/media attention (for obvious reasons) the reasonable expectation is that it will be even worse here. Hence, agree with Drmies that full protection is the best of a set of bad alternatives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Full protection is what is bone-headed, and not just bone-headed, but heavy-handed: it is a lazy response that punishes all editors for the actions of a disruptive few. And re: "Who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away..." Again, as I wrote earlier, that I was not heavily involved in the article is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, or thereafter became heavily involved in editing the article, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a comment, I have seen articles on past big events (specifically the boston marathon bombing and the Sandy Hook school shooting) developed just fine at the onset of the event with semi-prot. The rate of info can be an edit conflict problem but it's normal and not disruptive. I realize that this article is a much larger incident that is already attracting its fair-share of fringe theories, but the combination of semi-prot and firm editing cautions to remove users that are specifically there to be disruptive should be good. Full protection should not be used to making editing easier (due to fewer E/Cs), that's a bad way to use the tool. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, but it's a nice fringe benefit. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it's a lazy use of protection where it is not needed. It's a lot more work, but we are truer to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" by keeping it open. Only if it was the case that a lot of misinformation was being added by established editors would full protection be required. As RG says below, this is where pending changes would be better. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There's in fact an interesting discussion to be had about this "fringe benefit". But it's a discussion that has to be had before it becomes policy. In my view, the need for admin intervention is lower the more editor eyeballs there are on an article. In this case, we've got enough editors that the "good guys" shouldn't need help against the bad guys. This isn't a case of local neglect where there isn't enough of the community involved to express and enforce the community view. If bad actors, outside the consensus, are dominating then by a pro-wiki definition they are probably actually good guys because the fringe shouldn't be able to dominate a highly trafficked article.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I must say, as I did before, that this is the perfect place to use pending changes level 2 protection. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think not. Pending changes ends up being a confusing mess when rapid editing by multiple users is involved. I think there is a place for PC2, but this isn't it in my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: IMO while not technically wrong, indef is not the best duration for an article. If you don't know how long a page needs to be protected surely you could make that assessment within 3 hours, or 12 and update accordingly. While it's not wheel warring in this case (because the intent was to seek someone else to reduce the time), it's harder to avoid stepping on your toes if someone realizes you've misjudged the time than if you protected the page for a short amount of time. For a quickly evolving event (which sees a huge percentage of our positive new editor interactions) and has a lot of long term editors watching, that reassessment needs to come quickly. It's a recipe for wheel warring. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  It would be appreciated if you would educate yourself on the situation, because then you'd realise that I asked for this to happen. I asked for a reduction in time, telling people that they should reduce it because I didn't know, and still don't know, how long we normally do this. Nobody's yet told me how long we normally protect such pages. Please observe that wheel warring consists of a combative situation, not one in which the first admin says "Please reverse me when you think it's appropriate". Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  I understand the situation and I noted that you asked for this to happen. My point is that there's no way you could look at indef full protection of an article and say "this never needs to change." If you hadn't asked for review or you had gone to work or something then rather than wait for the protection to expire (over what should've been a short period) they have to divine your intent and reverse your decision. If this is your first time protecting these high traffic, time sensitive articles then maybe what you should do is consider my comment as a suggestion of best practices. Next time you protect an article like this (or really any article), think about making admin actions where a review from an admin who agrees with your intervention has to do nothing. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought I know that this is probably not going to be a popular idea, but perhaps it's time to read one of the Eastern Europe Riot acts (WP:EEML, WP:ARBEE, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes) of the page and talk page to arm the discretionary sanctions trigger. I observe that there are several editors with ties to the cases involved, in addition to being Eastern Europe, in addition to the active conflict area (vis-a-vis Russia/Ukraine). While I know brandishing such a tool will only stifle the improvement of the article, I feel that the rapid fire and heated changes are not improvements to the talk page/article. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • EE needs templates, something I'm not adept at. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: According to my research fu, it appears the Eastern Europe omnibus case code is e-e. The Discretionary Sanctions template family can be reached from {{Ds}}. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, I'm not sure what you're talking about. EE discretionary sanctions apply to the article by default. The only concern is that some users may not be aware of them, in which case they need to be notified, as soon as their behavior becomes potentially problematic. There's no "trigger" to be "armed". Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Young earth creationist pov-pusher repeatedly violating copyright

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

---

Hwahl90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding material stolen from Genesis Park, Creation.com, and probably other sites. He has been warned by Dougweller, and me. Dougweller and I have both explained (beyond the template) that we simply do not accept material directly copied from other sites, even if he got "permission." And yet he keeps adding copyvio material.

Trying to explain WP:NPOV to him, I get the impression that he's WP:NOTHERE to summarize mainstream publications, but promote fringe creationist beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for copyright violations and cleaned up all his edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry and edit warring.

I first became aware of the New Jersey-based IP 67.83.61.170 after reading an AIV report that complained of them continuing to add and replace contractions (ex: cannot --> can't) to articles in spite of numerous warnings. While looking through their edits, I spotted some of their edits at List of double albums. In these 15 edits the user added content that appeared to be original research and which also struck me as indiscriminate, as I don't understand what value knowing that various double-albums can fit on a single CD has, encyclopedically. I removed the content. The IP reverted my edit with no explanation. I opened a discussion on the talk page, reverted the original research, and directly invited the IP to the talk page discussion. Rx4evr appeared suddenly and reverted me again, stating, "I did the math & CD'S Hold up to 79:57 of music. So back off." I reverted again, so I'm at my limit. The named user has been active since at least 2008, so they should understand the rules. I also noticed that in 2008 they'd been accused of sockpuppetry and geographically linked to New Jersey IPs. So now there appears to be sockpuppetry, an attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP, asserting their worldview without participating in BRD, and my OR objections are now confirmed as OR with the "I did the math" comment. Would appreciate some admin eyes here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's blatantly obvious that the IP is User:Rx4evr who is using a mixture of logged-in and out edits to continue edit-warring to insert unsourced material and likely original research into articles. I'd warned RX4evr about this disruptive editing previously and they appear to have ignored my warning completely. I've blocked the account for two weeks and extended the block Daniel Case made on the IP to match.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest comment

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

---

I added this comment [119] which included an image of Upton Sinclair whom I quoted, and a sentence, "Friends don't let friends edit with a COI." I then went on to say why that's so.

The image and that one sentence were removed [120] with the summary that "Rm image per WP:POLEMIC". That didn't make much sense to me for a number of reasons, not least because WP:POLEMIC is from the User pages guideline, and says nothing about Wikipedia talk pages. So with the summary giving that explanation I added the sentence back with the image hidden as per the directions at WP:TPO: [121]. The hidden image and sentence were removed again with a different summary [122].

My request is just that I would like my comment returned to the state I left it at, if possible, please. I do not think my comment should be edited by someone else per WP:TPO. I was not able to reach an agreement on the user talk page wherein is mentioned an Ad Council and U.S. Department of Transportation ad campaign.

There was no comparison with drunk driving. I do not think I've seen any major American ad campaign, let alone the one mentioned. The phrase is common in academic papers: e.g. "Friends don't let friends eat cookies" [123], "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote For Free Trade" [124], "Friends Don't Let Friends Listen to Corporate Rock" [125]; and on Wikipedia (and apparently Alaskan bumper stickers too): e.g. "friends don't let friends become vegetarians" [126], "Friends don't let friends eat farmed fish" [127], "friends don't let friends date vampires" [128]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Friends don't let friends drive drunk is an ad campaign by the ad council starting in 1983 and has persisted for over 30 years. It is well known and attempt to coorelate living COI editing to drunken drivers who are constantly in the news for manslaughter is obscene. When pointed out to Atethnekos what that phrase means, he choose to persist instead of back off which shows me that he intended that meaning all along. He can make up some other clever insult that doesn't involve killing children and families and use the image for that. Googling "Friends dont let friends" immediately brings up the drunken driving ad council website - not cookies or whatever other red herring Atethnekos wants to use to detract from the real meaning of the phrase. It also adds nothing to the discussion at all.--v/r - TP 06:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

All of those other things are plays on "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." I've seen countless such variants. I would guess that Atethnekos is too young to have known about the inspiration for all those variants. This is something Americans often do. Like the many plays on the "Got milk?" ads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So use of a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference? Really? I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not User:Atethnekos. --Calton | Talk 08:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

30 year old campaign and still running. Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed.--v/r - TP 11:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't always comment at ANI, but when I do, I usually agree with Tom and Bugs. "Friends don't let friends" is a meme, like the stupid sentence I started this comment with, but it is a meme based on and comparing to, drunk driving. The seriousness of the offense of drunk driving is the only reason the meme exists, to compare some action with drunk driving, although almost always in a humorous way. Not all humor is appropriate, however. COI is a serious concern here, but I tend to think that comparing it to drunk driving is likely to be seen as confrontational rather than informative or humorous. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oh come on, "friends don't let friends edit Wikipedia drunk" or any such version of the meme is not comparative to the seriousness of drunk-driving, is not offensive, should not be offensive, is not confrontational (depending on how it's used), and a similar version of been used on ANI itself numerous times before. Geez, friends shouldn't let frends edit Wikipedia while being non-humourous or extremely overly-sensitive the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is a cultural thing, it seems to be to Americans who were pounded with the commercials for decades. I don't think it is a huge deal, but it is unnecessarily confrontational in a general talk page discussion. Personal talk page, meh, I wouldn't care. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I googled "friends don't let friends", and there are countless examples and images, some of them serious ("text and drive"), most of them parodies - one of the funnier ones was "divide by zero". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

92.222.153.153

Can someone block Special:Contributions/92.222.153.153. It's probably Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Materialscientist:...now it's Special:Contributions/62.244.31.16. There may be more in the pipeline I guess until he gets bored. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And another one Special:Contributions/190.199.79.135. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Death threat? from 112.175.69.140

By 112.175.69.140 (talk · contribs)
On my talk page here 4x and multiple times
I'm not putting a ANI notice on the IP's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably associated with the ANI immediately above Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Death threat or no death threat... This should be blockworthy if he had offered you flowers instead. Kleuske (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked by FPAS; I've protected Jim's talkpage (since this fellow has a habit of reappearing with a new IP every two minutes). Yunshui ^雲_水 10:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I don't mind acting as a lightning rod. I'd rather my friend be vandalizing my pages than articles or other's talk pages. Jim1138 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Same on my talkpage. I've s/protected that as well until our puerile friend gets bored. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy has now moved to Special:Contributions/190.38.118.55 + Special:Contributions/190.72.192.21 Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Again, both blocked. Could someone more knowledgable than me check if these and the earlier IPs are proxies? They're in different countries from the earlier ones and it would fit our friend's MO. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

112.175.69.140 port 3128, and 190.72.192.21 port 8080, they are open and usable. I extended the 8080 to a year, Fut Perf. already blocked the other for webhost, which is close enough. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nailed the other two as well, ports 8080. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Getting close to time to take this to law enforcement, and in my view should they begin naming names, the line is going to crossed. Jusdafax 11:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And 181.198.187.133, ostensibly in Ecuador. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Port 80 was an open proxy, and with a Captcha system to prevent abuse, which I find ironic. 1 year blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

He's moved to Special:Contributions/186.91.64.115 and now he is damaging content. Please semi-protect every single page he edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

User:Jmh649 (Doc James) reported by User:Technophant for wikihounding and tendentious editing

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

---

• Note - This complaint was copied from a withdrawn 3RR complaint and may have spurious information

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Referred itch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131] (rm link to free url for content that didn't exist, uncalled for)
4. [132] tendentious

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134] (User has not edited talk page section.)

Comments:
User is removing cleanup tags without proper justification or discussion, tendentious editing, and wikihounding.

I believe user is acting out of bias and anger and is not trying to improve WP. I'm trying to nip this one in the bud before it escalates. - - Technophant (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User also warned me of copy/paste when the edit clearly did not violate copvio due to its simplicity. He also threatened my editing privileges. Clearly another attempt to hound me. - Technophant (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup when you copy and past text exactly from a source such as you did in this edit [135] with text from the Washington Post [136] you get warnned. And than you return the text without sufficiently paraphrasing it here [137] Gah. Also difs number 121 and 122 are exactly the same edit.

Ah and this edit [138] while you see as I have already explained it was already linked via the pmc= parameter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Previous edit warring notices pertaining to Techno in the last two days

(edit conflict)I took the phrase "The American Medical Association (AMA) takes no position specifically on acupuncture." from the article without paraphrasing. This sentence is too simple to qualify of WP:COPYVIO (try reading it). I then paraphrased it as "While the American Medical Association (AMA) has publicly taken no position specifically on acupuncture, in 1997 they released a statement saying..." and say I didn't "sufficiently paraphrase it"? What??

(edit conflict)I added a link to a free full text of the article which wasn't present. The doi= or pmc= only gives an abstract and paywall. I'm beginning to think that you follow my contributions and seek to revert any and every edit possible. - Technophant (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Go to ref 226 in the notes section of the Lyme disease article [139]. Click on the PMC or the article name and guess where it brings you? And it is not the abstract and paywall. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

1. [140]
2. [141]

I would like to propose a one year topic ban from alt med of Techno widely construed due to his disruptive editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In this edit they deleted some of my comments [142]. They did the same thing here [143] and here [144] they edit my user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no problems with Doc James's edits. As he said in the edit summary, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyme_disease&oldid=617830342&diff=prev this was not necessary because the PMID ref url automatically gets generated if the ref tag is filled out properly. I think I hear the sound of a WP:BOOMERANG whirring in the distance....also, Support topic ban of Technophant from alt me articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now I see what you mean. PMID links to full free text on NIH. I thought it just linked to an abstract like doi does. I guess I learned something. Being that Doc James has reverted at least a dozen of my edits in the last hour I thought that this was just another attack. Apologies. - Technophant (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We have another report at 3RR here [145] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That 3RR report was created by by Mrbill3 and contains NOTHING that wasn't covered by previous investigations. Nice try. - Technophant (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Response to 3RR reports:

1. not blocked, not found in violation of 3RR, page protected.
2. not blocked, not found in violation of 3RR, page protected, mutual edit warring.

Please note that Doc James was a participant in both incidents and was tendentious. - Technophant (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The filer of this motion would be advised to read WP:BOOMERANG. I see from your contributions that you seem to be on some sort of tear in trying to get alternative medicine articles to conform to your perspective. jps (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt Med Topic Ban for Technophant?

Sometimes editors get a bee in their bonnet. I think this is the case here. This filing follows up a few other WP:FORUMSHOPs: [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], and so forth....

jps (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree to a voluntary short-term topic ban as long as Doc James gets one as well. - Technophant (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The proposal here isn't for editors to accept voluntary topic bans, but rather community-imposed WP:CBANs. And why would it be appropriate for Doc James to stop editing Alt Med when between the two of you only your behavior is topic ban-worthy. Zad68 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

(edit conflict) I did this. Why all the case building? I want an answer regarding the wikihounding. Harassing other users should never be acceptable. - Technophant (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that if you simply stopped editing articles relating to alternative medicine you would find that whatever wikihounding you think you experienced would probably end. jps (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• You have been instructed that the repetition of charges of "wikihounding" and "harassment" are both a personal attack and a gross lack of AGF, yet you dare to repeat it here. That takes audacity and foolishness to a new level. With that attitude you really don't belong here at all. Any "harassment" has been the proper attention paid by other editors who encounter disruptive editing patterns and uncollaborative habits. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban for Technophant on altmed articles - the tendentious editing and dramatics have created a severe time sink and shows no sign of abating. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Techophant editor's behavior has been extensively tendentious, there does not appear to be a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia. Multiple respected editors have made good faith efforts to the point of exhaustion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to curb their aggressive tendentious editing, forum-shopping, game-playing, and other disruptive behavior. Note that although a topic ban could be placed under WP:ARBPS, this discussion is regarding a higher level of ban, a community-imposed WP:CBAN that would only be able to be overturned by the community. Zad68 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Note that Ohnoitsjamie registered a support vote for a topic ban in the section above. Zad68 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Techophant not here to improve things. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of Technophant either indefinitely or for at least six months (jumping straight to an indefinite topic ban if he resumes the problematic behavior after the ban is over). The POV-pushing against mainstream medicine, forum-shopping, long-term edit warring, and gaming of 3RR are unacceptable to begin with, but it's pretty hard to assume good-faith from his nomination to topic ban a mainstream medical doctor from medical articles. Best case scenario, it still indicates Technophant isn't paying attention to why he's in trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: no position on the topic ban, though I would lean toward support. However, I will say that this diff provided above shows a remarkable lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT: changing to support due to the below. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. Not here to build a high quality encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Technophant. The retaliatory proposal below combined with the above diffs shows a lack of the maturity necessary for collaborative editing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Techophant is clearly incapable of contributing usefully in this topic area. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The retaliatory proposal below seals the deal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. We do not need more time sinks in this contentious area. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef ALTMED topic ban. Here to POV-push consensus or not. Jim1138 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ALTMED topic ban, very clearly does not even attempt to abide by consensus. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support The edits by User:Technophant did not improve the CAM related articles. This is the same behaviour as the recently confirmed sock Milliongoldcoinpoint. I think a SPI report will clarify the matter. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef ALTMED topic ban, user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and cannot follow simple rules. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. We're also dealing with lack of competence. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose no need to make MEDRS stranglehold on Wikipedia even worse. The Banner talk 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt Med Topic Ban for Doc James?

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

---

I would like to propose a one week topic ban from alt med of Doc James widely construed due for wikihounding. He may be well respected in the community, however past good deeds do not excuse bad recent ones. Letting him go unpunished sends the wrong message and could cause an editor, like myself, to abandon Wikipedia altogether. I guess it all comes down not to what you do, but who you know. - Technophant (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hell no to topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose bad faith retaliatory proposal. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, maybe someone should SNOW close this. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - though this pointed proposal is a perfect example of why your own ban is merited. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Opppose per GSP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Diffs? Can't support this proposal without a clear reference to a behavior guideline and supporting diffs, otherwise it appears to be just more game-playing/battleground behavior by Technophant. I note that WP:HOUNDING says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." which appears to be what Doc had to do in this case. Zad68 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question What kind of sanctions are typically handed down for wikihounding? - Technophant (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question What kind of sanctions are typically handed down for tendentious editors not getting that good editors fixing their stubborn screw ups isn't the same as wikihounding? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's not wikihounding. Meanwhile, I am curious how the editor Technophant, who until four days ago had shown no interest in this topic, suddenly became an edit warrior on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• No way in hell This should be wp:SNOWBALL closed. A quick scan of T's contribs makes it clear: Technophant has a misconceived mission to right wp:GREATWRONGS in wp's coverage of altmed by balancing reliable sources against new, less-reliable ones. DocJames was just keeping the damage in check. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:37, 21 July 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.

Baba Shah Jamal vandalism

User talk:117.20.21.230 has been attacking the page Baba Shah Jamal with Soapbox rants and spam links. Is there any way to protect this article from this particular user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biochembob (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I've reported the IP to WP:AIV for persistent spamming after being warned. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)