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

India Against Corruption again- possible legal threat by editor who states policies don't apply to him

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - is this a legal threat by User:Claus at Name Defend DE? His userpage states

• This is user page of Claus @ Name Defend.
• I am a declared paid editor to inform editors of factually incorrect content, copyright violations, trademarks violations, impersonations, other breaches of law and breaches of WMF "Terms of Use" etc. which have legal consequences, and which breaches and consequences the average editor may be unaware of.
• I do not consider myself bound by self written community policies. I am editing under WMF "Terms of Use" and "privacy policy"

He is editwarring at India Against Corruption (just gave him a 3RR warning) and on his talk page explains his edit by saying "However, my edit is a constructive edit to uphold a core policy of the Wikimedia Foundation's "Terms of Use" - to prevent impersonation of the named organisation. The controversial deleted text was inserted by another paid editor "Sitush", against whom the affected organisation has very recently filed a criminal complaint in India, including for impersonating a History graduate from Peters House / Cambridge University so as to mislead the Wikipedia community and pose as an authority." Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doug, see the section immediately above this. Note that Name Defend IPA was blocked indefinitely by Salvio giuliano as a checkuser block [1]. This is clearly the same person, and in fact, the socks are probably all the same person. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Claus at Name Defend DE now blocked by Euryalus for "Making legal threats: and probable block evasion as sock of User:Name Defend IPA". If yet more proof is needed that this is the same sock as all the rest, note that the copyvio tag on Anil Trivedi was actually placed by the blocked sockpuppet Duffycharles with a very inappropriate edit summary [2]. Within minutes of Duffycharles being blocked for sockpuppetry and legal threats, User:Claus at Name Defend DE registered an account [3]. Today he addded to the report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a checkuser look for sleepers. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The section above was added while I was editing this one, so I missed it. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if the article should be subject to full protection as the socks/meats seem to regularly make the requisite edits to get around semi. DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That is tempting, given the collateral damage they're prepared to inflict to get around semi-protection. (It is striking that someone claiming to oppose corruption would expunge an account of human rights campaigning.[4]) It doesn't seem that India Against Corruption is active any longer, assaults on Wikipedia by people claiming to act in its name aside, so while there might be details to fill in about its history, there may be no notable developments to add. NebY (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but it will only partially help. If this faction (who claim to represent the Hindustan Republican Association) cannot get at that article, they will continue disrupting multiple related articles, including biographies of those they perceive as their enemies. They will also keep pursuing time-wasting quasi-legal issues in retaliation. They have now made 2 unsuccessful attempts to have India Against Corruption removed from Google's search results on spurious claims of copyright violation when their spurious claims here didn't work out for them. They also claim to have filed a sexual harassment case with the WMF on behalf of one of their sockpuppets, etc. etc. Interestingly, the latest copyright infringement they reported (at Anil Trivedi) actually was an infringement, although not of their material, despite the bogus claims made at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 that they were "acting for the affected person/s". This is long-term abuse dating back to 2008. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This "faction" does not represent the Hindustan Republican Association.

Do you have any reliable source for your outrageously false claim on Anil Trivedi that he was in any way associated with India Against Corruption as continues to be stated in that article ?? This is exactly the kind of IMPERSONATION of the IAC organisation which the "outed" ADMIN "Sitush" was paid to promote on Wikipedia. (PS: Read the news report in the Times of India - Lucknow edition about paid senior editors of Wikipedia) which pisses the IAC off.

BTW: Claus has emailed Admin:Euryalus, our identities are disclosed and verifiable. NAME DEFEND is going to expose how corrupted paid Wikipedia Admins have systematically fabricated "checkuser" results to show that 27 NAME DEFEND editors systematically operating from many countries on very widely located ISPs and using different computers and networks are showing as a single editor (@IAC sock-farm), whereas the 983+ still active Wikipedia accounts being used since 2005 with over 4,00,000+ edits (incl. 38,000+ on 2014) are not being detected by Checkuser. Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your above statement can you provide reliable sources to prove that Sitush was paid to edit Wikipedia. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the babblings above can't even get elementary facts right - Sitush isn't an admin - I can see no reason why we should be remotely interested in anything the latest sockpuppet could say. They have been plastering this noticeboard with pseudo-legal threats and similar bollocks for years, while presenting precisely zero evidence of any wrongdoing. Why should they do anything differently this time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the above, might it be reasonable to consider a blanket siteban on Name Defend, by whatever name? That statement comes off as an organizational mission statement to continually violate WP:NLT and pretty much blatantly states that the whole group is not here to write an encyclopedia. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well i think we can definelty lose this one, it seems uncommon for a new user to be able or willing to lodge an ANI and edit a request for arbitration [5] so soon form the start up. They appear to be tagging any page that can find that might be beneficial even if theyre not doing it correctly.Pretty much sums up not here.Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note appears theyve been reported to WP:AIV and blocked fromt here prehaps a good sign to close this off as it doesnt seem to serve any purpose now. Amortias (T)(C) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption again – further discussion

• Considering the personal attacks and allegation being made on their talk page, shouldn't talk page and email access be removed? Neatsfoot (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • DMCA India Against Corruption logo is relevant. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I wonder if a DMCA takedown notice is valid if it's filed under a pseudonym or if there's some requirement that the filer provides some proof of identity? NebY (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Irrespective of whether the DMCA takedown notice was valid, the image was appropriately removed from Commons as it was clearly a previously published non-free logo. It appeared in March 2011 on indiaagainstcorruption.org, the official website of the India Against Corruption organization (the one the WP article is about—not the one "Name Defend" claims to be "defending"). See Wayback Machine capture. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Do the Name Defend accounts operate from a limited set of IP addresses? If so what would be the collateral damage in blocking that range? Blackmane (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this before. Maybe you want to unclose it, User:Black Kite, since so many comments have accrued now? Not that I'm bothered. Anyway, Duffycharles is not a sock but a puppeteer, editing since 2008, with HRA1924 and Lindashiers| their socks, as confirmed by checkuser Ponyo. (Man, we sure have a lot of so-called "fabricated checkuser results" in this area. A whole CU conspiracy, obviously.) From Duffycharles's odd edit history, with long gaps, I'm sure there were more socks during "his" inactive periods. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling about the IP range, from what Ponyo told me. But might it be reasonable to tag all of the above as socks of Duffycharles per WP:DUCK? If it's even worth the bureaucratic trouble to try to keep what Black Kite accurately calls this mob tidily registered. In any case, I for one am certainly ready to block new quackers on sight, if people will tell me about them. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think this all needs to be documented on a page at WP:Long-term abuse to keep track of this lot and to help identify future socks. At the moment, the information and connections are spread all over the place. For example, there is an even older account than Duffycharles. See User:Landirenzo, registered in 2007 and checkuser blocked as a sock of HRA1924 in April 2014 by Tiptoety (along with 2 others). Plus there are Dkgpatel (blocked for legal threats but clearly a sock) and Rti india and AcorruptionfreeIndia (both with the same modus operandi as all the others and both with checkuser blocks but no apparent documentation as to whom they were socks of). "Claus Bruentrup" and "Name Defend" are simply the group's latest wheeze for pursuing HRA1924's agenda. The "company" website, Name Defend, Institut feur Geistiges Eigentum, was hastily assembled on 13 September 2014 (complete with copypasted German sentences and images of handcuffs and the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom (!). It is registered to Sarbajit Roy [6], the convenor of the group now calling itself "India against Corruption" and who are pursuing their various attempts at legal action here and at Google. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if Long-term abuse is the best place, Voceditenore; it's being considered for deletion, for one thing, and nobody looks there, for another. Perhaps an SPI? Its archiving system works pretty well. I agree that there should be an overview somewhere, and SPI is surely the place people are likely to look. Considering the mentioned checkuser blocks that don't indicate a sockmaster, perhaps we should ask someone with checkuser permissions to lay out this mess, in some place. (There may already be an SPI that could be fattened up.) It's not an attractive job… hmm. I already pinged Ponyo. Pinging Tiptoety, DeltaQuad, and Elockid, who made the checkuserblocks mentioned above: does one of you guys perhaps feel like providing an overview? Yes, I know, it's amazing the lengths I'll go to to delegate messy work to someone else. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Oh boy that was a long time ago. The only thing the CU log indicates AcorruptionfreeIndia is that it was in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadurr/Archive or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ginsuloft/Archive. Those were the two cases I was investigating at the time of the block. Other than that, I have no recollection of the block and nor does my email. If I can help further, please let me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen. Reading this thread brings back bad memories. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to recuse myself from any further involvement following numerous legal threats, attempts at outing, and insistent emails from this group. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that, in order to keep things simple and ensure the accounts are blocked quickly in order to limit the excessive disruption, a synopsis of typical behaviour should be outlined on a user subpage (or at WP:LTA if it survives AfD). The page could be linked to when making duck blocks or in discussions such as this. This is a nasty group known to use extreme harassment and litigious tactics, on and off-wiki, to try to intimidate editors who disagree with them. The quicker each new sock/meat account can be shut down the better as opposed to adding unnecessarily to an already bogged down SPI process.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It rather looks as if Long-term abuse might survive, maybe even with a snow close, and is still in use. If there was an IAC entry there, could links to it be placed in archived SPIs? NebY (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen and Ponyo, the final result of Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse was "snow keep". The material should preferably be documented at LTA. Given this group's past history of harassment, outing, legal threats, etc. I personally think it would be too dangerous for any single editor to keep the material on one of their user pages. Another alternative is as a subpage of Talk:India Against Corruption, although that's not as centrally accessible. But wherever it ends up, the documentation needs to be done. Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if the LTA list were deleted, the process of documenting who the abusers are would continue. Just as the process of banning people here. But we can't document the banned users, only the LTA's. Who determines the LTAs? Doc talk 08:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Common sense, in this case. My life has been affected by this lot and I'm willing to bet that you have no idea of the extent to which that is so, which includes relocation. The comments of Ponyo, Tiptoety and Voeditnore should give you some clue, though, as should my recent out-of-character (and completely misinterpreted) reaction. - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What is it with Manchester? Doc talk 08:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be the location of some the best content creators and defenders of the Wiki, although I'm one who is now only sporadically in the area. What is it with you? - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Get an account. I've no clue who you are, and neither does anyone else here. Doc talk 09:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you have no clue about the entire issue being discussed here, let alone who I am. Probably best that you either clue-up or desist from commenting. I have an account and there are plenty in this thread that will recognise me. - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So you have an account, and yet you're using this IP instead of that account. I would like you to explain how you are not a "sock" account, please. Doc talk 09:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc, drop the stick. There's no problem with this editor editing logged out. It isn't sock puppetry as we define it, and I would really appreciate it if you don't further abuse one of our most abused editors. Having to leave your home because of threats is no laughing matter. There's no question in my mind about this being worthwhile documentingd at LTA if not elsewhere as well. These people are a serious menace. I also am avoiding doing much in this area because of justified fear of litigation or worse. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc is just being an oblivious ass, pay no attention, mr IP. People using their real name or otherwise findable should be wary of working in this area. I for my part ain't scared (I defy them to find me), just lazy, also rather busy IRL. I wouldn't mind hosting such a page in my space, if somebody else does the heavy lifting and e-mails me the doings. However, the snow keep of LTA at the MfD, especially the comment from Worm That Turned, suggests to my mind that the LTA may be useful for this after all. In my previous comment, I wasn't well aware of the difference between LTA and the recently deleted Wikipedia:List of banned users. Anybody can start an entry on that page, but think about your own safety before you do, use a sock if necessary. (Not your IP, there's nothing safe about that.) Bishonen | talk 10:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

Yes, Doc please drop this stick. This discussion is not about your personal views on the deletion of the banned users list. You have no idea what is going on in this (very long term) situation. Those of us who have encountered these people know exactly who the IP is and why they are fully justified in currently editing while logged out. Their work re this particular problem has been nothing short of heroic. Like Doug, I too am worried about editing in this area, even as a copyright clerk (I'm not an admin). Care to see some of their latest threats [7], [8]? Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I assume DuffyCharles/Name Defend is de facto banned, and can be blocked on sight (ie w/o waiting for a legal threat from the latest incarnation) ? If there are any t's to be crossed to make the ban formal, we should do it now. Abecedare (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is my understanding correct that these Name Defend accounts show no difference from the previous IAC defenders? I suspected this from early on, the lack of any info on "Name Defend Services" or "Claus Bruentrup" was another clue. The company registration details above further confirm my suspicion. If so, is the Sochi removals [9] typical of IAC editors or perhaps a clueless (if you're going to get involved in other areas, at least try to not do a controversial one) attempt to show they're not a single purpose account? Obviously none of this is a big deal, but I'm trying to get a clue what's going on having watched this from the sidelines which occasional comments. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nil Einne, see here (User:Claus at Name Defend DE) and here (User:HRA1924). In my view, The Sochi removals were a cack-handed attempt to validate their stated purpose: "inform editors of factually incorrect content, copyright violations, trademarks violations, impersonations, other breaches of law and breaches of WMF Terms of Use", i.e. to continue their current pose as a quasi-legal firm which intends to "police" Wikipedia. Claus at Name Defend DE did the same kind of mass content removal at Delhi Police that day. The removals via multiple edits also serve to build up enough edits to circumvent the semi-protection at their real goal, India Against Corruption, although that certainly backfired. Note also, I had cleaned the copyvio they reported from Anil Trivedi and re-referenced it. However, they continued to complain that the article was "impersonation" because according to them, he does does not belong to the "real" India Against Corruption. After the latest name defend accounts were blocked, and after I had removed the copyvio from the Trivedi article, 49.204.6.36 returned to the article, removed the mention of India Against Corruption [10], then changed his birthplace contrary to the references and the subject's official biography [11], and then summarily redirected it to Aam Aadmi Party [12]. That IP may not be connected to the sock farm, but the timing is rather curious. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The IAC bastards have now filed a false report with ICANN, using the Lindashiers (talk · contribs) monicker, regarding a domain name registered to me. That domain is now being deactivated due to their lies and I'm struggling to work out how to halt the process. This is yet another warning to those who are involved in the farrago, but I'd also appreciate any advice that experts in ICANN procedure might be able to offer (probably best done by email, otherwise we'll drift miles off topic). The WMF have been completely useless throughout this mess, which is massively disrupting my life and has included threats against my life. It's no wonder I'm going into meltdown here. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you've already received help and I don't think I could really offer much and I understand you probably wish to keep details to a minimum for both privacy, beans and offtopic reasons. But if you're willing, it would probably help to clarify what you mean by a false report. Did they claim trademark misissue under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy? Or claim they were the owner and you stole it from them? Or manage to trick your registrar in to thinking you'd trasferred the domain name to them? Or trick your registrar in to thinking they were you and done something dodgy? Something else? The trademark/UDNDRP in particular would probably have to be handled fairly differently from any impersonation. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. More or less what I expected I guess although I forgot about the semiprotection/number of edits issue. And confirming that despite their extreme persistance and willingness to use extremely dodgy and disruptive methods, they don't seem to have much competence. As I mentioned, if they'd been smart they would have at least chosen something which would have people thanking them to try and establish their credentials, there are surely a lot of real problems they could deal with. But I guess that takes too much. (I'm not sure whether this qualifies as beans since if they were to do something useful, it wouldn't actually be a bad thing even if it were to try and evade detecting. In any case, I highly doubt they're going to take any of this on board.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Per requests above, I have created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm and transcluded it onto the main Long term abuse page. Feel free to add to the dedicated page, and to link to it, for instance when you block a new IAC sock. Very good page! (We owe it to a couple of users who don't wish to appear; I didn't do any of the actual work.) Bishonen | talk 19:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC).

Welcome messages to user pages

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

---

A user with the humble name Six feet nine inches full of muscles started his Wiki career by welcoming himself and then he went on a short welcome tagging spree, including creating user pages with welcome messages. I guess those user pages should be deleted. Iselilja (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspicions raised when one of his first edits was this to this very page... GiantSnowman 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Was just about to note that. I'll guess not a new user, but pretending to be one? I feel like I've seen this before, but don't remember who. ansh666 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins, see deleted contribs of Cebhfvaqfviue (talk · contribs) - same guy? GiantSnowman 19:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, user notified about this discussion... GiantSnowman 19:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's only David Beals.[13] Checkuserblocked by Ponyo.[14] Bishonen | talk 21:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

Sorry, but what's so bad about welcoming new users? That's what {{welcome}} is for, after all.--Auric talk 12:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Peter Downings and his WP:COI issues

Hello friends, Peter Downings a WP:SPA WP:COI editor who is making disruptive edits in two articles, Adnan Sami and Arshad Sami Khan. By his comments at Talk:Adnan Sami and on his talk page it's clear that he is closely related to the subject. And the subject, Adnan Sami, has asked him to do this changes (A case of WP:Advocacy). His changes include an highly unsourced, Non neutral, original research content with full of peacock terms like this, this and this also this. His edits are direct violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. Along with this all his edits are to the same article i.e. it's a SPA (all 150+ edits). His edits are disruptive and has been reverted by number of editors like Philg88 [15], MelanieN [16] and Babitaarora. Even after getting revert so many times he add the same problematic content. We have warned him and after a final warning by Philg88 he continued his disruptive edits [17] [18]. It is an issues of Ownership of articles combined with WP:IDHT rather than just a content issue. I ask an uninvolved admin to take a look. Thanks, Jim Carter 07:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Here is the diff of Peter Downings' justification for his edits: [19]. He makes it clear that he is speaking for the subject and that he believes he (on behalf of the subject) owns the two articles. He may have a point about certain issues that need correcting. But instead of posting those points on the talk page individually and letting people discuss them, he just keeps pasting his own version into the article - a version which is full of peacock terms and unverified assertions and is basically unacceptable. IMO this has passed beyond the point of content dispute and has become a matter of disruptive editing. --MelanieN (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a look.I made some additional cleanup. I don't see any sufficiently strong formal warning on his page. As a new editor, he may not realise the extent to which what he is doing is unacceptable, or the significance of the discussion being moved here. I think it might be unfair to immediately proceed to a block, and I therefore gave a final warning for ownership. Having edited the articlea, I don't want to proceed further myself. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair comment DGG. I too was reluctant to block given the combination of inexperience and/or misunderstanding of policy. Hopefully, your warning will do the trick.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your actions, DGG. I also went to his talk page and posted a detailed explanation, in simple English, of what he is doing wrong and what he should do instead. It's possible he isn't reading the links people post, and so he still just doesn't get it. I thought I would give him last shot at actually hearing what we are telling him. A question: DGG, I had assumed if he does it again we should notify you. But it sounds like you are ruling yourself out as involved? So if he does it again, should we come back to ANI? --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• The same editor just made the same kind of disruptive edit, once again, to Arshad Sami Khan. [20] The user received a stern final warning from DGG, and I engaged with him in a final attempt to explain in simple English how he should edit. It was after both of those interactions that he went ahead and pasted in his own version once again. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't see any edits by Peter Downings on either articles since the 8th, the day prior to DGG's warning...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread the history. Thanks for the correction. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter Downings is probably a pseudonym of an Indian, in view of his bad English.

• I think, it is an issue of Ownership of article. He want to prove that he is the P.A of Adnan Sami and better know about him. when I have reverted his edits, he told me he has been authorised by Adnan Sami. Here is the msg Personally sent by Adnan sami.

I just wished to clarify that my Wikipedia page has been open to 'abuse' for quite some time. Hence much of the information on it has been distorted for quite some time. I had requested Peter Downings to rectify it for me. He did so but I am told that you had it reverted. I would appreciate it if you may kindly revert it to his new edit which has been authorised by me and also guide me if possible as to how to protect my page as it seems to be a free for all starting with my family origins to my personal life etc. Babita arora 10:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AsceticRose is removing data even though 3 other people disagree with him

This user has removed the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj&diff=628935524&oldid=628929903

But 3 others have added and edited this information. He claims it is irrelevant. I feel this is going to get into an edit war.--Calcula2 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would dismiss this as a content issue. There has been no discussion on the talk page yet. Perhaps somebody post on the talk pages of involved editors and call them to discuss this. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Debresser for your post. A good amateurish enterprise on part of Calcula2. Calcula2's vengeance for me probably came from Talk:Battle of Badr where Fauzan and me disagreed with Misconceptions2's recent edits to the article. Thats why, I suspect some kind of Sock puppetry regarding Calcula2, a newly-created account (7 Oct 2014). But I really have no time to run behind them. -AsceticRosé 04:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a new user and not a sock of Misconceptions2. Misconceptions2 would be using his own account rather than battling on a new account. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why dont you take it to an SPI investigation. I have no problem with that--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Misconceptions2 You know that it could have been done. SPI generally requires strong behavioral evidence. Let's put this way, AsceticRose must stop making baseless assumptions. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

New evidence, deleting data though 5 people disagree with him. REMOVE HIS ROLLBACK rights

Now it looks like User:AsceticRose is about to engage in an edit war here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Badr&diff=629010905&oldid=628939771

First a discussion was called for in talk page to build consensus. So 5 people agreed to something and 2 people didn't. Because of this I added back the data that was in dispute. Then this guy removed it claiming their is no consensus.

In hajj page he is also asking to make a discussion in talk page just to add a little data that he keeps removing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj&diff=628935524&oldid=628929903

I bet even if their was a consensus and the small amount of data he keeps removing is added back, he will remove it again claiming their is no consensus like he in badr article. He is like a politician leading people on wild goose chases, agreeing to certain rules then not even abiding by it when it goes against him--Calcula2 (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Calcula2 AsceticRose hasn't used rollback during the reverts. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support blocking him and removing his rollback rights if he continues to edit war. He is already engaged in an edit war. Theres a consensus in theres a consensus on talk page that the data which was added should be kept as it is well referenced and expands and povides more information about the event--Mohsinmallik (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  Um, I'd remove his rollback rights if I saw any evidence of a pattern of abusing rollback for purposes other than described in WP:ROLLBACK. But I'm not seeing it. As far as I can tell, Ascetic Rose isn't using rollback for edit-warring. Rollback right is therefore a separate and unrelated issue. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

---

In the discussion on Talk:Battle of Badr, following editors are involved;

Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs · account creation)

Junellene.sapinoso (talk · contribs · account creation)

Mohsinmallik (talk · contribs · account creation)

Article contribute (talk · contribs · account creation)

Calcula2 (talk · contribs · account creation)

AsceticRose (talk · contribs · account creation)

Fauzan (talk · contribs · account creation)

The first five editors are related in some way or the other, they edit each others userspace, participate together in AfDs, etc. Pertaining to sockpuppetry, few SPI cases were opened regarding Misconceptions2, where it was determined that these (and a lot of other) editors are different or technically unrelated but related off wiki. I think that these editors should avoid editing in common areas, at least in discussions and the way they determine consensus: "5 vs 2" shows some kind of WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality.

If any further action needs to be taken, the first thing is that the discussion should continue on the talk page. ANI is not a place to complain against editors of other viewpoints. Restrictions might be placed on these editors on commonly editing the pages where consensus is determined if such kind of behaviour persists. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 20:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is turning into an edit war because AsceticRose keeps removing data. On wikipedia people are allowed to work together to make articles. So if some peopel are editing each others sandboxes and draft articles that perfectly allowed on wikipedia, thats what I have been told on admins.--Mohsinmallik (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that SPI investigation was going on regarding Misconceptions2 where a long lost of suspects were reported, and several were indefinitely blocked by admins. Mohsinmallik also appears on the suspected list. So I was somewhat right in smelling a rat here. When Misconceptions2 edits an article, Calcula2 remains silent, and the vice versa.

I'm hard-pressed by time now. So, I will be brief here. Despite the fact that it is a content-related issue, Calcula2 and the related others are cleverly avoiding the talk-page discussion, and instead using this ANI to shift the focus from the following issue.

In Battle of Badr aricle, Misconceptions2, just a few days ago, introduced a minor viewpoint for reasons best known to them, and re-wrote the article from that perspective ignoring the mainstream viewpoint regarding Battle of Badr. The previous version stood for long, was written in a scholarly manner, and passed the test of time (of course there can be some minor issues which can be solved).

As per WP:BRD, it is their task to describe how their version is better than the previous which they are ignoring. More on Talk:Battle_of_Badr#Recent_edits

Ah, again the accusation of edit-war has attached to my user-name above. Can anyone please tell me what can be immediately done to prevent readers from getting a distorted view of an important historical event through Wikipedia, especially when the introducers refuse to discuss and prove their point on talk-page?

Equally pathetic is the fact that they totally illogically brought the issue of my Rollback rights, probably to distract the main issue. Instead, should not they be given the advice to fulfill their burden on talk-page? -AsceticRosé 05:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fauzad just reverted data and is continuing the edit war here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Badr&diff=629153593&oldid=629102979 he reverted data claiming "Pelase discuss in talk page why it should be added". I think he is doing this on popurpose. Because he knows its been discussed in talk page and he even participated. He refuses to include the reason why this miltiary campaign happened, which was to raid camels and caravans for the booty. I think he is an Ahmadiyyah who has fringe views--Calcula2 (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So Calcula2 reported me in vain for a second time, now on AN3. I'm waiting for a third reporting from him, and if possible, a fourth. This will give me the opportunity to visit various unknown corners of Wikipedia!

I appreciate his great efforts to endanger and harass me, but feel sorry that he probably will not succeed. -AsceticRosé 03:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How to resolve this issue

This issue will be resolved if you stop removing this data all the time:

According to the Muslim scholar Safiur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri the purpose and reason for this battle was to raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further the Muslim political, economic and military position.[13]

According to the Muslim scholar Dr. Mosab Hawarey the goal was to take the Quraysh caravan and its camels, he wrote the target was "initially Quraysh camels, then fight erupted"[6]

The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir also said the purpose of this Battle was to capture Quraysh war booty/spoils by raiding the Quraysh Caravan, he claimed Muhammad encouraged the Muslims by saying: “This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it, Allah might make it as war spoils for you”, and like Mubarakpuri he also stated that the purpose was to make Islam dominant, he also claimed Muhammad said “so that He makes you prevail above them and gain victory over them, making His religion apparent and Islam victorious and dominant above all religions”.[14].

Also stop saying this is a fringe view. Muslim sources like clearly say it was offensive here: [21] . Also Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri is not fringe and his book Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum which is used as a source is celebrated and won notable prizes "he Arabic version was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seera" Stop acting like apologists--Calcula2 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming an admin

Background of the dispute

Andrevan has recently been invovled in a content dispute on the Gospel of Matthew article. His involvement began when he was asked to intervene on behalf of another editor 18:13 6 Sep 2014 who has a long history of conflicts on the page and who alleged that there were "a group of user accounts working together" to suppress his edits. 05:31 7 Sept 2014, 21:28 7 Sept 2014

Escalating the dispute

Rather than calming down the dispute, Andrevan escalated it by engaging in edit warring, 20:01 14 Sep 2014, 07:46 15 Sep 2014, 09:16 15 Sep 2014, 09:32 15 Sep 2014 and making unhelpful statements on the article talk page. 07:00 15 Sep 2014, 09:34 15 Sep 2014

The following statements by Andrevan on the article talk page are particularly problematic:

"You all arguably have conflicts of interest and are pushing POVs here"

"we are dealing with a POV-centric, possibly pro-Christian and maybe anti-Eastern Orthodox or anti-Semitic consensus"

"If you and your sock/meatpuppets keep this up I will have no choice but to pursue other means. Yes that is a threat - a threat to engage in the mechanisms which enforce policies like those quoted above."

This led to a subsequent ANI filing for talk page threats against other editors which was closed with no action taken. 09:59 15 Sep 2014

DRN filing

After the article was NPOV-tagged, a DRN was opened in an attempt to resolve the content dispute. 02:17 18 Sep 2014. Andrevan's opening statement there was also unhelpful. 02:37 18 Sep 2014

The following remarks made by Andrevan in his opening statement at DRN are especially problematic:

"Many of the other editors have WP:COI as Christians and haven't fully disclosed their involvement with academia, missionary and/or clergy as far as I know."

"At the kernel of this is the idea that a group of orthodox Christian editors are cherry-picking a POV, and excluding others, which conforms with their idea of the academic consensus in violation of WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV."

"It has been suggested by Ret.Prof, who also claims to be a non-Christian, that these theories are associated with Jewish, non-religious and Eastern Orthodox perspectives into Christianity, leading to this incidence of bias. ... Therefore this is an instance of systemic bias masquerading as a consensus, and reliable sources are being excluded at the expense of NPOV."

SPI investigation

While engaged in the ongoing dispute, Andrevan filed a sock-puppet investigation. 21:09 17 Sep 2014 The SPI looked at not only IPs but patterns of interaction between established editors. It was closed with the statement "CheckUser is not for fishing". Unknown to the editors involved, the investigation was subsequently reopened, (SPI reopened) and only recently closed with the statement "I'm not even seeing a reason for behavioural review here. On looking further, I'm going to close this entirely. Risker (talk) 17:53, 4 October 20d14 (UTC)".

PiCo's retirement from editing

The prolonged SPI investigation probably contributed to the retirement of one of the category's most talented and productive editors. 03:08 2 Oct 2014, 03:50 2 Oct 2014

Ignocrates' (almost) retirement from editing

I almost retired myself out of disgust, 00:05 6 Oct 2014 but I'm going to stick around at least long enough to see this through. What happened here was wrong. Ignocrates (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review the expectations of adminship. The issues that concern us here, which are detailed under administrator accountability, are (1) bad faith, (2) breach of basic policies (incivility, edit warring), and (3) poor judgement.

Discussion

The SPI was inconclusive but mainly due to the technical reason that the old IP activity was stale. I don't know why Callanecc reopened the case after the initial closure, or why he didn't then close it when I asked about it on his talk page, but to the larger point, I'm not sure what policy I was violating through all of this, outside of some edit warring early on which I admitted and ceased in your last ANI post. At no point have I used admin tools, I stand by my concerns regarding POV pushing, possible sockpuppetry,and systemic bias. Andrevan@ 21:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please recall your own words in quotations above. You explicitly accused other editors of religiously-motivated bias and meat-puppetry without a shred of evidence to back it up. In fact, an extended SPI investigation showed there were no behavioral issues whatever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If an ordinary editor had made these multiple accusations, they would have been blocked. Yet you walk away without so much as a reminder. Why is that I wonder? Ignocrates (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, this was a bad idea. You failed to prove something a week ago. You're now back. You were told then that RFC/U/ADMIN was a next step. ANI cannot do anything. In fact, I'd bet RFC/U/ADMIN won't do anything either. Admin tools were not used improperly. The POV editing is obvious. The SPI was technical non-linking, not behavioural. You're claiming someone retired because of this with zero proof (extraordinary claims and all that). You're also playing WP:DIVA and suggesting you're only here until something is done. Nothing will be done, nor can it - so you'll martyr yourself wrongly. God, what a bad idea - you created a situation where you can never win, but are guaranteed to lose. the panda ₯’ 21:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The POV editing is not at all obvious. Most of the editors involved have been around a long time (~9 years like me) and are highly experienced. Thanks for your concern that I will "martyr yourself wrongly". I appreciate that but something needs to be said. Let's see what the community says. Ignocrates (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, Ignocrates has proven that Andrevan is casting aspersions quite a lot - accusing editors of a COI, claiming that Christians are biased for being Christian, ect ect. That's inappropriate behavior and needs to stop. Andrevan should focus on the edits.--v/r - TP 21:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, last I checked, having a COI by being an active member of a religion was a potential problem, especially when combined with extensive editing and POV-sculpting in that subject area -- see, the issues around Transcendental Meditation editors probably a few years back? And I recall some case involving Israel-Palestine and Judaism? At any rate, accusing editors of a COI isn't a personal attack -- and it is and was directly related to a content dispute. More importantly, it has nothing to do with admin powers. Andrevan (logged out at work) 22:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time you checked was wrong and it's still wrong this time. You are casting aspersions. If that isn't clear to you, let me say that again: you are poisoning the well and making it impossible to collaborate because of unproven accusations of bias based on the personal characteristics of your opponents. If you cannot get that, let me point you at two Arbcom cases which specifically address this: Here and [[22]]. Religion is not exempted from there. See Meta:Terms of Use, wmf:Non discrimination policy, this Arbcom case. Stop accusing other editors of bias simply based on their religion. No matter religion or any other characteristic, WP:NPA still holds true: comment on the edit and not the editor. P.S. I haven't said anything about admin or 'crat powers. That shows where your head is right now. This is about you the editor. Having a widely held religion is not a COI anymore than living on the planet earth give your a COI. If the edits are biased, call the edits biased. Don't ever, and I repeat, don't ever comment on the editor.--v/r - TP 00:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an edit that's biased without the editor likewise being biased? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You prove editor bias through biased edits. You don't prove biased edits by claiming editor bias. Backwards logic.--v/r - TP 01:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Which edits do you say are biased? – Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

[23] [24] [25] [26] This dispute has apparently been going on for years and I'm sure there is research to do for more diffs - but note I am not making this claim anywhere right now, Ignocrates is quoting my words from a closed WP:DRN.Andrevan@ 02:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I am made the first of those edits, I really must ask you to explain how it could possibly be biased. In fact, I think you should explain that with all the edits. You are accusing editors of being biased - that is a serious accusation, and you should be able to explain how that is the case. StAnselm (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We've been going around and around on this for a while, but as I've explained, you are misrepresenting academic consensus in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:RS/AC and the following statements from the TM ArbCom: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarised sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. ""Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." To explain in article content terms, you like sources which say that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Greek-speaking late-Christians, and not the Hebrew/Aramaic Jewish-Christians. Why or how that affects your personal belief I don't know - but you and this crowd have a strong tendency to revert any changes made to explain these significant minority points of view dating back hundreds of years and supported by notable scholars France, Edwards, Bernard, Casey, and many historical personages.Andrevan@ 03:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem then that I was editing contrary to my religious belief, since, as I stated at DRN, I personally hold to a pre-70 date. StAnselm (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:TParis, I am not discriminating a priori. This is a late stage in a protracted dispute, and there is considerable evidence presented and arguments made on both sides. You seem to think that Ignocrates' out-of-context quotations consist of my entire argument towards bias. There is a small group of editors who insist they WP:OWN the article content and anything aside from a group of cherry-picked sources is WP:FRINGE. They will edit war with anyone who adds sourced balance to the article. I have no dog in the fight, but it seems to be more between denominations, not Christian vs non-religious - or perhaps it is actually, as some have suggested, between academics and lay-people. At any rate, I am calling it how I see it as someone who began as an impartial observer of the article. So perhaps a better description of what I've been doing is critiquing the POV selectivity as seemingly an orthodox perspective (which I assume to pertain to religion based on the subject matter -- I am not simply saying "you identify as religious therefore cannot edit"). Pertaining to ArbCom case law, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Neutrality_and_conflicts_of_interest, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Peremptory_reversion_or_removal_of_sourced_material. I know nothing about the editors personally so the charge of ad hominem is way off here. And again note that I haven't used any admin tools, but certainly might have had reasonable justification before I became WP:INVOLVED. Finally, if you want to see a personal attack, you need look no further than Ignocrates' recent edits.[27] Andrevan@ 02:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I immediately struck my statement, 01:10 2 Oct 2014 conveniently ignored here. I also note, fyi, that Andrevan finally removed the NPOV tags, 23:03 2 Oct 2014 but only after he shoehorned his own preferred version of content into the article, per WP:KETTLE. 00:27 2 Oct 2014 Ignocrates (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV tags is a sign of good faith and willingness to find a compromise. The version I added was significantly weakened and never before submitted -- and was not reverted right away, so I took that as an olive branch.Andrevan@ 02:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

With respect to this "small group of editors", there are several of them I don't even know. I have no edit history with them prior to this dispute. I think there is a major confusion here between WP:STEWARDSHIP - editors recognizing inferior work and fixing it - and WP:OWNERSHIP that seeks to preserve a preferred version. There is no preferred version; that should have been obvious from the DRN. Everyone was happy with the compromise solution reached in DRN, even Ret.Prof was on board. Everyone, that is, but one editor - Andrevan. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the ArbCom case above pertaining to peremptory reversion of sourced material? That's not stewardship. Anyway, none of this is "conduct unbecoming," it's a content dispute, and while perhaps not my finest moments, well within the bounds of reasonable policy-abiding behavior. Could I have kept a cooler head at times? Surely, but did I pull any triggers or jump any guns? Hardly! Andrevan@ 02:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Andrevan's unwillingness, or inability, to acknowledge and take responsibility for his own actions is troubling. Self-reflection is an important quality to have as an admin. I was going to propose a formal reminder as a remedy and move on. Now I'm not as sure about that. Ignocrates (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you are entitled to your opinion or to make whatever proposal you would like. User:TParis, I would just like to point out preemptively and at the risk of provoking his ire, is doubly involved here as I have interacted (not altogether pleasantly) with him in the past, and he also indicates his religious COI on his user page. Andrevan@ 03:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep using that phrase. That is not a COI, and User:TParis has not declared a religious COI on his user page. Your belief that all religious adherents have conflicts of interest in editing religious articles is at the root of this issue. For that reason, I propose a topic ban as outlined below. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And on the other side of that, can you point out where we've had any interaction, pleasant or otherwise, as I don't recall ever having spoken to you or even been in the same thread with you before.--v/r - TP 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The other thing that troubles me with Andrevan as an admin is oft-quoted belief that policy trumps consensus. That seems a complete carte blanche to ride roughshod over any community decision and it disturbs me that someone can be an admin who thinks in this way. StAnselm (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well ... sometimes policy does trump consensus. To take an extreme example, no amount of consensus is going to allow a group of editors to insert BLP violations or copyright problems; and admins regularly close discussions (especially at AfD and RM) against what the consensus appears to be because they have to take into account strength of argument. So that's not a black and white issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Because assessing consensus meanings looking at policy-based arguments. Consensus is the community's mind on how to apply the policy in a particular situation. StAnselm (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Andrevan

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

---

I propose that User:Andrevan be banned from editing all religious articles, broadly construed. His views regarding religious bias and COI have meant that he is not able to interact with other editors in a collegial way when editing and discussing those articles. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; Support. Regrettably, I agree. however, the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude being demonstrated here convinces me that a simple reminder will not be sufficient as a remedy. Ignocrates (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As a party to a dispute with Andrevan, it is not proper for you to propose a topic ban. I hold this as a general perspective. A party seeking to topic ban another party, who they are in a dispute with, is something I can never agree to. If this had been proposed by an uninvolved party, I would consider it but as it is, I would oppose. Blackmane (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough, and I am certainly an involved party (e.g. Andrevan said that I should not be editing the Gospel of Matthew article at all). However, the dispute regarding the article is now finished, so I would not describe myself as currently in a dispute with Andrevan. This is now regarding where we go from here. I was also basing my proposal as much on what Andrevan has said in this thread as anything he has said and done in the dispute over the Gospel of Matthew article. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I may be critical of Andrevan but we're not at the topic ban stage yet.--v/r - TP 06:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic bans are not for removing editors from subjects where you disagree with them. Black Kite (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify (since this appears to be directed at me) - this is not about any disagreement with the content issues of the article. (The dispute appears to be over, and the article is in a stable state.) Rather, it is disagreement about the very nature of editing, and who is entitled to edit articles. And yes, I disagree most strongly with Andrevan on that. StAnselm (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think my point was that at the moment, we seem to be getting a lot of entries at ANI where editors have a disagreement over an article and then head here asking for topic bans for their opponents - I would say that topic bans are a last resort (well, a second last one) rather than a first one, and I'd really expect to see long and well-documented evidence of persistent abuse before going along with that. Black Kite (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Andrevan is a well respected Bureaucrat, Administrator and Mediator who after a failed ANI against me was asked to Mediate. The anti-fringe editors turned on him because he made several statements in my favor, for which Ignocrates etc are holding a grudge. If one reads Andevan's statements in context you will see the accusations against him are totally false. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Andrevan admonished

I propose that User:Andrevan be admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, per the code of conduct described under administrator accountability. There is more to being an admin than the use of tools; the community elects our admins to positions of trust. More is expected than what has been demonstrated here, specifically (1) bad faith, (2) breach of basic policies (incivility, edit warring, npa), and (3) poor judgement. Ignocrates (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:ADMINACCT is about admin actions. It cannot be used in this context.--v/r - TP 06:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm basing my proposal on the precedent set by ArbCom. Please see the Ebionites 3 case, particularly the principal pertaining to Conduct unbecoming an administrator. There were no tools used anywhere in this arbitration case. Ignocrates (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• An Admin doing his duty! User:Melissadolbeer (a new user who left Wikipedia in 2005) who said "This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia." It is still on her user page. I believe editors at Wikipedia should never be made to feel this way.

More recently, was how User:Davidbena was treated during his first month at Wikipedia. Within five days of this newbie joining Wikipedia he was falsely accused accused of wrongful behavior and brought before ANI/Aug to be banned. Later, as we were about to start mediation he was again brought before the Feb/ANI again to be banned.(He withdrew from the mediation process). He asked why don't the "brass at wikipedia" do something???

At Mediation I was intimidated by the following order to withdraw from the process: "Frankly, if this continues even another few days, I am going to find the time to file an Arbcom request and solicit permanent sanction, being either a full site ban, or at least a topic ban. Ret.Prof. you need to withdraw again or we are going to arbcom this time." Although I did comply, I felt it was very, very wrong. Finally re User:John Carter & Ignocrates diff4 diff5 diff6 diff7 diff8 diff9 diff10 diff11 diff13 diff14 diff15 diff16 diff17 diff18

Andrevan also saved me from Arbitration. diff He is a completely neutral mediator, administrator and bureaucrat doing his duty! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Can someone clean up this off-topic mess? There are diffs in here from formal mediation, which is forbidden in a dispute resolution about conduct. Ignocrates (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong: The diffs here from formal mediation are allowed when they appear to be disruptive. ie The privilege does not extend to your attacks on the mediator! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of that party's communications.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If that is so, why were you instructed by the arbs to remove these diffs during arbitration? 14:51 1 Sep 2014 Now you are here doing the same thing. I advise you to proceed with caution Ret.Prof, or your efforts here may WP:BOOMERANG. Accusing other editors of making false statements and other forms of misconduct is not to be taken lightly. This also seems like an attempt to take over an incident report and make it about something else entirely. The formal mediation you are repeatedly citing ended successfully in March. I should know; I implemented the compromise solution. Ignocrates (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I filed a request for a block for attempting to use the ANI process to settle some kind of personal score. See below for details. Ignocrates (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please close this ANI. I apologize publicly to everyone who was offended or feels slighted. We're clearly not headed for a topic ban and this is regressing. Andrevan@ 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a self-serving request, but I agree that a T-ban is probably overkill. Therefore, I changed my vote to oppose based on the arguments above. However, something more than a boys-will-be-boys pat on the back is needed here. We already had that in the previous ANI. I still think a formal admonishment is the way to go. Let's see what a few more uninvolved editors have to say before we close this. Ignocrates (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I too apologize if I got carried away. I do not generally lose my cool. However this second ANI against Andrevan, for simply doing his job got to me! Sorry again! I agree that it is time to close out this ANI. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ret. Prof, I cleaned up your diffs and please note that waiving the mediation privilege is something the committee can do, but you can't. Please spend some time with the preview feature before you post more than a few lines of scrolling as it is very disruptive to the thread, and I've told you this before... I appreciate you rushing to my defense here, but there is nothing to get so excited about, and I'm sure that's exactly what your counterparts would use to discredit your position. Andrevan@ 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said I definitely overreacted and I have apologized! Hope my rant did not put you in jeopardy. It would not be the first time I have given my "counterparts" material use to "discredit my position". Thanks for the fix. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan, thanks for cleaning up this mess. That resolves the purpose of a block, which was not intended to be punitive but to stop the behavior. In any case, it has stopped now and that's what matters. Ignocrates (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comments - (1) the topic ban option was quickly opened and quickly closed 19:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC) before most of those who are familiar with the issue could see it. Could people please bear in mind that the planet takes 24 hours to turn on its axis.

(2) despite the rapid open/close, discussion of a "topic ban" is rather moot - despite that I think the concerns about the imbalanced approach of Andrevan are not (as the diffs show) smoke without fire. Since if Andrevan has the act-as-admin-in-Matthew hat removed (or as appears has already happened voluntarily takes the admin hat off) then as an editor with no background in the NT studies area there aren't many edits left to make.

(3) as far as I can see, having seen some but not all of it, it looks to me like Andrevan was originally acting in a good faith way in entry to a technically complicated expert zone where SBL type academic opinions (as characterized by the 7 or 8 the "WP Religion" editors, which note includes myself though I've been absent in this recent round) are in a drawn out content/source dispute against fringe/fundamentalist/popular/old/minority sources - represented in particular again and again by one editor with a longstanding issue about a "lost" "fountainhead" (what? Papias and Origen?) "original Hebrew Matthew" and issues such as dating/Gnostic gospels/Jewish gospels/etc. Into this neverending story, self-resurrecting deleted articles, arbitration (refused). Any admin walking into this area could have come a cropper like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, thanks for weighing in with a comment, but what, if anything, should be done here? We need to bring this filing to some kind of resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but as I said I haven't been following all the details. I had already expressed personal concern to Andrevan on his talk page about some of the earlier assumptions, and expressed concerned that an editor - by his own admission - not familiar with the field might be advised to not too hurriedly support the one-scholar-view being inserted, but I hadn't seen some of the more startling diffs above. FWIW I think as a good faith assumption of a good faith admin having been unfamiliar with the particular quicksand, I'd be inclined to just let it go. I think Andrevan has apologised (or should) for some of the diffs above, which voids the need for admonition, and the question of individual topic ban for someone might be better addressed to any editor persistently revisiting and repushing the fringe view that Andrevan unknowingly got dragged into. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with In ictu oculi's reasoning here. (1) The rush to close the topic ban was strange. It should have been left open until the entire incident report closed. (2) An apology, albeit a weak one, relieves the need for an admonishment and reduces this to a reminder. Let's close this with a reminder to avoid casting aspersions and focus on the edits rather than the editors, per Tom Paris. Ignocrates (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Edit Prevention: Impersonation of an Admin by technopat

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

---

Non-admin technopat (talk) seems to think you've given him/her some kind of "admin." privileges, even though there's a place on his/her talk page about admins that shows that he/she is not one. But she/he still thinks s/he can falsely accuse me of "vandalizing Wikipedia" by erasing her/his own so-called "warning" from my own talk page. I've been told by more than one admin. that erasing stuff from--even emptying--your own talk page is acceptable. So you need to stop this guy from acting all "admin" when he/she 1. isn't one, and 2. doesn't even know the right things to warn about in the first place.

I've written technopat up on his or her own talk page for this behavior:

user talk:Technopat#You're not an admin. 75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Any editor can leave a warning on your talk page over problems with your editing. The only difference between an admin and a regular editor is that an admin has been trusted with additional tools. The only thing Technopat shouldn't have done was restore the warning after you deleted it. But that isn't actionable because it hasn't reached the level of an edit war. —Farix (t | c) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the worst report ever to land at ANI. Technopat has done nothing wrong, any user can leave a warning. In response to that one warning, the IP has has done eleven edits to Technopat's talk page, six edits to WP:EF to complain about it and now ANI. All of them with absolutely no reason. The IP may be in good faith, but Ignorantia juris non excusat disruption of this kind. Give the OP a 24h block for harassment of Techopat to take some time to cool down.Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Jeppy, t'pat DID do some wrong things. See below: 75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I type slowly, so much of this has been said. However, Technopat was not acting as/impersonating an admin; any editor can leave warning templates. As I see it:

• You've been edit warring with 3 other editors at Acronym. Don't do that.
• You called another editor an idiot. Don't do that.
• Technopat warned you about it. Anyone can do that.
• You blanked the warning. You can do that.
• Technopat reverted your blanking. He shouldn't have done that.
• Technopat warned you for the blanking. He shouldn't have done that.
• You have blitzed his talk page and Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports multiple times. Don't do that.

So this is solved by (a) you not calling other editors names, (b) reminding Technopat people can blank notices on their talk pages, (c) you blanking your talk page if you want to, (d) you leaving Technopat's talk page alone, and (e) politely discussing the issue at the article on Talk:Acronym. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We really need to have imposed 2 new policies, then: 1. that admins are all clearly identified (no "unmarked police cars"), and that 2. only admin-badged writers can give (even have access to--so you'd have to change the way the templates are accessed) any kind of official (or official-looking) warning.

That's because it looks like the artificial "power" that some experienced NON-admin writers seem to think they have gets to their heads! I really don't like the idea of thinking I'm having to bend under the pressure of someone who, at first, looks like an admin, only to later discover that they're just some bossy schmuck with no authority!

How would you like to be pulled over by dome dimwit with fake cop lights on their car, only to then find out that they have NO police authority? I don't know *anyone* who would tolerate that. EXACTLY my point!

The only kind of warning I want from a non-admin is one that carries no official markers of any kind, but could only be something like "If you keep doing this, then I might report you," to which I could then reply with the same little bit of force, "If you do that again, then I'll report *you.*"

• "You're not the boss of me!"

I'm still hoping someone will answer me about why technopat gets a pass for warring back, even if he technically "didn't break the 3RR"(/24H) rule! Why?

75.162.179.246 (talk)

No, that's the beauty of the community: there's no hierarchy. Every member in the community has the responsibility to teach and/or warn others when their behaviour is going outside community boundaries. Every member of the community likewise has the responsibility to respond to those warnings appropriately. You agreed to it when you arrived the panda ₯’ 10:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And technopat did NOT "get a pass" - they're now fully aware, and they know that action can be taken in the future should it recur. the panda ₯’ 10:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I've been asked to "admit" my error in restoring the warning I posted for the two insulting edit summaries left at the article where the user was edit-warring with several other users ([28] & [29]). Fine, I'll admit it's my error. Hope that makes everyone else happy, 'cos I'm left with the unpleasant feeling that while some folks can get to do whatever they like in terms of disruptive editing, including repeatedly restoring content that is plain wrong (this is an encyclopedia) and escalating matters by maligning and insulting users, even at this very ANI, others have to turn a blind eye and simply get on with maintenance. On top of which I been warned that "they know that action can be taken in the future should it recur". Regards, --Technopat (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, Panda? Well then why wasn't an edit-warring warning given to him/her (not "them," since that's a plural form--well, someone else suggested just "him" as if they already knew this was a guy) at the same time as I got one? If supposed "edit-warring" is only accused of to the *first* person who changes something repeatedly, but not to the one who edit-wars it back repeatedly, then what's the criteria for determining that only the guy with the *new* changes should be thrown the "edit-warring" warning? Just because the old version had been sitting there longer? Or just because there was a consensus for the old way but not the new way? Then why do we even *have* public editability if every older version is the one with the supposed "consensus" and it "should not be touched," and if it is touched repeatedly in a new way, then only *that* person gets the "warring" warning but the person assuming that the "only right version" is the old one does *not* get the same warning for warring it *back*?

75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring case you brought against them was dismissed because they did not violate 3RR. The solution to editing disputes when changing things like you did in Acronym is to solve them on the talk page of the article. Not act the way you have so far including filing this frivolous ANI. - SantiLak (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Ryulong and User:NorthBySouthBaranof

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

---

After commenting in Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Describing_Quinn-Grayson_relationship_in_the_lede in response to another editor's proposal, I found myself immediately set upon and badgered by these two users who assumed bad faith and made several baiting comments, apparently under the impression that everyone joining the conversation must be strongly biased against their clearly non-NPOV viewpoint on the issue, which Ryulong explained by saying "It's to discourage editors whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to attempt to push a point of view that goes against common sense and what the reliable sources on the subject discuss."

I'm appalled at how poorly these seemingly-'heavyweight' editors are treating newcomers to a significant page. My initial comment on the article was to disagree with someone else's proposal--a proposal they also disagree with--but they're so eager to see pro-Gamergate zealots that it wasn't even read and understood. I have not edited the page, I will not edit the page, I made one comment that was more neutral than the user I was responding to and, well, here we are.

While I understand that this is an ongoing controversy, I am amazed at how full of vitriol these editors are. It is not what I have grown accustomed to from Wikipedia and flatly contradicts WP:CIVIL and WP:DNB. I am not experienced enough with Wikipedia to recommend what sort of action--if any--should be taken. I'm content to bring it to your attention.

They'll be notified in the next few seconds. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've hopefully fixed the huge cock up here- When linking please for the love of god use brackets (IE [[]]). Thank you!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I already fixed it and you reverted my fix! We're good now. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Snakebyte42 is a pro-Gamergate editor making BLP violating statements on the talk page. There's nothing to see here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not. That's rather the point. My statement was entirely neutral and a response to a more biased comment, which Ryulong is too insistent on assuming bad faith to even read. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Let me correct myself. Snakebyte42 is one of various dormant accounts of users who have involved themselves off of Wikipedia in the Gamergate debate who have returned to Wikipedia to push a POV on the article. While it was perhaps wrong to address him as such, it has become the norm on the article to have people like him appear out of apparently nowhere and begin making problematic statements such as this one that really belay his "I'm neutral" standpoint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not push POV. I am not pro-Gamergate. I did not edit the article. I disagreed with the suggestion of including Zoe Quinn's motivation for sleeping with Nathan Grayson. Anything else is poor communication on my part or a failure of comprehension on yours. Please stop telling me who I am and what I think. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could explain why you chose to use the phrasing "a desire for positive press or a desire for penis drove Zoe Quinn onto Nathan Grayson's throbbing shaft" in that diff I keep linking to? Perhaps I was wrong in understanding your intent, but it's been months of dealing with editors who have an axe to grind and who have used similar language.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Because speaking to you calmly and rationally didn't seem to work, and being told I think and am saying things I do not think and am not saying leads me to anger quite quickly. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well we now know that there was a misunderstanding.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all I wanted, man.Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:Ryulong (there, he's been notified) is a hugely disruptive editor, see that top of this page now (before it's archived) and his blocking history. The fact that every single user who has contact with him ends up in a huge conflict should show that his last block (I think it was for a month, although were I a stalker I'd know more accurately) has simply not taught the needed lesson. Ryulong can rule, he can't deliberate, or even pay attention. Admins who might think I am on a vendatta should also look at the fact that the last time Ryulong was blocked for a month I refrained from editting an article over which we had had conflicts. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  Medeis, drop the stick already. You didn't convince people that I was a danger to the project in Nanshu's thread so you're not going to do the same here. Stop complaining about how I resized your Ultraman screenshot. It's getting old.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• The initiating user made an allegation of wrongdoing about a person that has been repeatedly debunked by reliable sources. I pointed out that reliable sources have debunked that allegation, as discussed in our article. The initiating user then admitted that he didn't even read the article content before commenting on the talk page and states that it is uncivil of me to point this fact out. Talk pages are for discussing article content and I hardly think it uncivil or irrelevant to note that the user hasn't read the article on which he purports to be commenting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to read an article to comment on the suggestion to include something. It's obviously not there, or people would not be suggesting ADDING it. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So you've initiated an ANI thread because you don't like me pointing out that you haven't read the article on which you commented, and now you've admitted that you never had any intention of reading the article and don't think you should have to read the article, which means your commentary on the article is entirely uninformed by the actual content of the article. WP:BOOMERANG seems to apply here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I made no such allegation. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, you did. "A journalist failed to disclose a close relationship with someone he was writing about and giving positive to." That's your diff. I'm not sure how you can claim you didn't write it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a relevant allegation. Say it with me now. Allegation. It's not something I intended to present as fact, as I made quite clear later in the comments. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So then you knowingly lied when you just said 9 minutes ago that you "made no such allegation." OK. I think we're done here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I did not make the allegation. I was discussing it. As an allegation that has been made by other people. I was not asserting its truth. I do not assert its truth. I DO think it is relevant to include in an article discussing the controversy. Please read my actual words instead of this opinionated zealot that you think I am. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you up in arms at me pointing out that the allegation is false and has been debunked by reliable sources, which you'd have known if you bothered to read the article before jumping into the talk page discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm up in arms about you attacking me because you think I'm saying it's true, and jumping into a discussion that had nothing to do with pro-GamerGate sentiment. If you are policing the page in this way you must be driving off people by the score. You are attacking people you perceive to have different views, and they don't even have them!Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said you believed it was true. Rather, I pointed out repeatedly that it is false, and that you would have known its falsity if you bothered to read the article you're commenting about. By publicly restating an allegation of wrongdoing by a person, whether you believe it to be true or not, you are inviting others to point out that the allegation is false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not when I am discussing it in terms of what should or should not be displayed as an article. The allegation itself is relevant to Gamergate. Gamergate cannot be discussed without discussing the allegation. Its truth or falsehood is irrelevant. You badgering me about it was *irrelevant* to the purpose of my comment. I haven't looked into it enough, but let's say it has been conclusively proven false. I can still say that it, and the fact that it has been proven false, are relevant to an article about a controversy. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You wrote A journalist failed to disclose a close relationship with someone he was writing about and giving positive coverage to. This is all that matters here. I'm going to now correct myself and state that you believe it to be true, because if you didn't think it was true, you wouldn't have stated it uncritically and you wouldn't have said that it 's "all that matters here". You're claiming that a debunked allegation of wrongdoing is the only thing that matters in an article that you admitted you hadn't even bothered to read.

You have no authority to tell me that I can't comment on your public talk page statements and point out that you're making statements which have been shown to be false. You don't get to control who says what about your claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There's this thing called context, you know? My comment was in response to this statement: "The only allegation that matters for the purposes of GG, and thus nullifying the BLP aspect, is that she slept with Grayson explicitly for getting positive press cover, not that this was cheating on her ex." THAT allegation doesn't matter, the allegation that I mentioned is the one that matters. If you didn't barge in assuming bad faith, you'd have seen that. MATTERS, in this sense, being in terms of the Gamergate article. The statement I made is not the statement you read.Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• "XUser is a pro-Gamergate editor ..." Ryūlóng, this line is devolving to the level of an ab homine to dismiss someone else's statements rather then address the content of their statements. —Farix (t | c) 20:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  There's been an extreme problem with users joining the fray on that Wikipedia article for the sole purpose of POV pushing under the guise of "I'm just new, but look at what [sources already in the article that support my view point] say". Snakebyte42's decision to use the language at the end of his comment here isn't helping matters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should lead by example if you feel it's not being done to you. Starting an ANI thread because of a misunderstanding is the least of everyone's concerns.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  I rather feel that I am. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  If their claims are full of BS, then counter it with evidence. However, simply stating that "X is a pro-Gamergate editor" as a way to counter their claims comes close to a personal attack and you should avoid that type of language. —Farix (t | c) 21:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't even make any claims. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  They have been countered with evidence time and time again. Some editors keep bringing up the same issues they have with the article despite it having been disproven to them once already, or others coming to the talk page to rehash those same arguments, often when they are already under discussion elsewhere on the talk page. Perhaps I should stop playing into the emotional aspect of things, but there's only so much to do when it's weeks and weeks of the same shit being repeated by unnecessarily similar voices day in and day out. And being sent push notifications when someone on Twitter bitches about me to the official Wikipedia account for responding to people on the talk page. Hell, someone linked the thread above started by Nanshu. My brother was right. I shouldn't have bothered to get involved with this gamergate garbage. I'm done with the article. It says what it needs to and there are plenty of other people capable of informing the latest editor who hasn't been on Wikipedia in 8 years and had 2 edits previously to make the same arguments as the new editor who has a thread half way up the talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ban them all. Nick (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Nick's solution. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support what Nick says. Nobody looks good here.Jeppiz (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  Any ban is just going to give me unending torment by the pro-gamergate crowd offsite. I already feel sorry for who ever runs @wikipedia after seeing my name show up whenever some new wave of gaters felt incensed about something I said on the article's talk page without any corroborating proof of doing anything negative to the article itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• As an involved editor at Gamergate (and one trying to get this more neutral than it presently is while staying within policy limitations), we are well aware there are many offsite pushes to try to change the tone of the article to be less hostile and/or more favorable to one side that is lacking otherwise decent representation in the press. As such, there are SPAs and long-dormant accounts involved on the talk page. That said, the attitude that at least Ryulong has been taking (effectively never to give them the time of day) is against AGF, and I've tried to point out that even if most end up being claims to fix it in a way we can't do, a few do offer some usable ideas, which is why AGF is important. Add that Ryulong's name has come up a few times recently on ANI, and while there's no immediate ANI action I can see, a brief wikibreak may be useful to cool off a bit. Trouts all around, of course. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Considering that Snakebyte42's third comment on the article's talk page was to respond to a simple correction of a factual (and BLP-violating) error with "What the hell is your problem?" I think complaints about 'baiting' and 'assuming bad faith' ring a little false. The massive uptick in new or long-dormant editors swarming that talkpage in the past few days has understandably left some a little short-tempered. But in this case Snakebyte is absolutely the one who was doing the 'baiting.' The tendency of some longtime editors to coddle these often very disruptive contributors and expect others to do the same has only inflamed the situation on the talkpage. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

...by the editor who literally told me to go 'fuck off' and who's account was itself dormant from July 3th to Sept 9th where your first edits after being dormant was to the GamerGate afd. You've contributed nearly exclusively to that page and its talk page after you got out of your dormancy. Tutelary (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And for your part, a strangely high percentage of your edits to that article's talk page have been geared towards attempting to discredit me personally. Yeah, I was inactive for all of two months. Terribly sorry for that. But I'm talking about people who've been inactive for years, most of whom had only a handful of edits even when they were active. So your comments here suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of why SPAs tend to be problematic. And yes, I told you to "fuck off," Tutelary, because in your effort to present me as an "SPA" you actually lied about my contribution history. You stated that I had edited fewer than ten articles, which is patently untrue, and characterized my contributions to the articles I do edit as 'excessive,' when in fact my contributions to Wikipedia appear to be more diverse than your own. Semi-automated vandalism reverts aside, you contribute almost exclusively to anti-feminist topics, and while my list of articles created may not be the most illustrious, it's still longer than yours. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"You sure aren't helping GamerGate make its case that "it's not about Zoe Quinn," are you?" "Then why was Quinn sent so much vitriol?" Bait. Assuming bad faith. Snakebyte42 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So you launched a zillion-word ANI thread over a true observation that barely rises to the level of mild snark? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether you intended to or not, you made a statement that was a clear violation of WP:BLP. You did not say that people were claiming that Zoe Quinn slept with journalists for coverage. You said she did it. You got the reaction you did because you were making comments very similar to a number of other overtly disruptive editors who are present on that page. The short tempers are the fault of a far-too-lenient approach towards disruptive editing, and sanctioning these editors rather than the ones causing the disruptive is not going to do a thing to improve the article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

This discussion can't end here. Dreadstar went on to indefinitely block Snakebyte42 for a BLP violation, although Snakebyte42 has been registered since 2012 and had no previous block log. All issues relating to Ryulong were ignored, although several editors here raised concerns. That's not how boomerangs work. --Pudeo' 23:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Let it go. None of the concerns are valid and I'm taking a break from the afflicted article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

While the concerns are valid, ANI is not the forum for addressing long term, suboptimal behavior. WP:RFC/U is the appropriate venue for that. NE Ent 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock of Snakebyte42

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

---

The administrator Dreadstar has indefinitely blocked editor Snakebyte42 for vague 'BLP violations' and for the basis of policy of WP:DISRUPT. However, when I attempted to hold Dreadstar accountable for this block, inquiring about these specific BLP violations and the indefinite block of a long term editor who had only begun editing this topic area, I was told 'The admin responding to the unblock message will determine all of that. ' as if the admin reviewing the request knows any reasoning about Dreadstar's block beyond the block reason, the post that caused it, or anything of the sort. The exchange between me and Dreadstar at Dreadstar's talk page is particularly relevant; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreadstar The one sided exchange between Snakebyte42's reasoning (on his talk page) on why he shouldn't have been blocked and Dreadstar's response ended with a response from Dreadstar saying 'WP:BLP applies to any and all Wikipedia pages, including article and user talk pages. Dreadstar ☥ 22:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)' It's also particularly disheartening to see Snakebyte42's talk page, where he elaborates he's been on the site for so long, and he can't even know what conduct he did that got him blocked. I've not been able to get a clear clarification of what exactly this user did to get blocked, and how it was so particularly rule breaking or incorrigible that the editor had to be blocked indefinitely for first offense and without warning. As such, for lack of evidence regarding disruption of this user, Snakebyte42 is to be unblocked. Tutelary (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Tutelary (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Support topic ban User:Snakebyte42, User:Ryulong and User:NorthBySouthBaranof. Their ownership and behavior on the article and talk page is disruptive. Giant WP:OWN problem that has nothing to do with BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oh fun, an evidence-free accusation of wrongdoing. Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unfortunately, few place any faith or weight in your opinion in Gamergate-related matters. Snakebyte42 is presumably an adult, seems to possess a fluent grasp of the English language, and appears to be competent, though severely misguided when it comes to misogyny/GG topics. Those are instances in where some sort of wiki-advocacy on another's behalf might be useful. Since none of those conditions are met, you're more or less just a busybody butting in to unwanted venues. Snakebyte42 can handle hs own unblock appeals and can choose to hold the blocking admin accountable per WP:ADMINACCT if he feels said admin is lacking in that area. Cliffsnotes; butt out. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the type of comment that will soon be struck per sanction for the tone in which it was written. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Some people are bothered by the truth, I know. The point is, the blocked editor is perfectly capable of speaking on his own; there is nothing wrong here other than the filer's own unbridled aggression within this topic area. Tuletary is shit-stirring against an administrator who has made administrative discussions against single-purpose accounts that share Tuletary's point-of-view om Gamergate. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Remember a block isn't a ban, Snakebyte42 can ask for an unblock at anytime.... Anyway he screwed up and thus now facing the consequences ... like we all do really. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Then tell me his incorrigible, absolute crime. Tutelary (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a highly-inappropriate statement about two living people discussed in the related article. Any admin can see it in the revision history of the talk page if they wish. Those of us who saw it have no intention of repeating it here or anywhere else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to risk being blocked by repeating as such. But I do believe that you were engaging in that same discussion, here; Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Describing_Quinn-Grayson_relationship_in_the_lede Very often brought up, and it needs to be gotten right in the article, and is necessary to discuss. It came out of a thread of TDA trying to figure out a good way to include it without violating BLP. Looking at the exchange, he was extremely blunt, and he even opposes the Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson thing explicitly, saying her motiviations didn't matter. I'm confused; isn't that exactly what North and Ry have been arguing for? That it be excluded? Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose/Keep blocked. Tutelary says, "...I've not been able to get a clear clarification of what exactly this user did to get blocked"; do which I say, look directly above, where it's laid out. If you can't understand that, then you don't belong anywhere near these articles, nor should you be secretly communicating with the editor -- if you have something to say, say it where everyone can see it. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from all Gamergate-related pages and discussions for Snakebyte42 (talk · contribs) and Tutelary (talk · contribs). The former could probably then be unblocked (see current unblock request), while the latter once again shows that their participation is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Could you drop the freakin' stick? Just because the last discussion ended with no consensus doesn't mean you get to harass me with another thinly veiled attempt at getting me banned from the entire site because you have a personal conflict with me. Tutelary (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If someone's getting there behavior called upon I personally don't think it's right for that person to then just close this and pretty much dismiss it ... that's my opinion & no I'm not going to edit war over it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Tutelary closed the above three times (1 + 2 + 3) despite it containing my proposal for two topic bans including for Tutelary. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The first time was due to not wanting this to drag out since Fluffer finally gave a reasoning--which is what I really wanted. In default, if admins cannot come up with a suitable reason for blocking a user or evidence, the user should by default be unblocked. That's essentially what I was proposing. I honestly didn't see the thing at the bottom about the frivolous topic ban against me. The other two was not wanting to start a whole 20 day long ANI page request that ultimately ends in no consensus because somebody wanted to see an editor they disagree with topic banned. So again, can you drop the freakin' stick? I know you really wanted to see me topic banned/site banned earlier, but come on, this is starting to get filthy. Tutelary (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock excepting in response to unblock request. Oppose topic ban. Oppose edit warring over closing this thread. NE Ent 02:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Wow--what Ent said, just about. I don't see the need for a topic ban, and I believe that Snakebyte is done with editing GamerGate. However, to expand on Ent's "unblock request", the current one, even if apparently revised with Fluffernutter's advice, is clear as mud. Snakebyte says "that was the statement..." but I can't tell what they're talking about. Specifically, it needs to be clear that whatever was said in the rev-deleted edit, from 10 October 19:49. I can't tell from their unblock request if they understand what some people have been trying to explain them: a. the BLP applies everywhere; b. the language used in that rev-deleted diff is simply unacceptable. Now, I will add that they probably wrote that awful post as a response to Ryulong's heated post, but explanation is not justification. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I notice you didn't block anyone over the edit-warring on the close, though. Good thing they weren't questioning an admin's sacrosanct behavior I guess.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Funny how all that happened in between my looking at the thread and following the diffs, then clicking "edit". That takes more time than a quick soak in piss and vinegar, you know. Now shoo, and find something useful to do; if all you have to contribute to this thread, which is about someone correctly getting blocked for BLP reasons, is some pissy comment at me, you should probably consider sticking to Talk:Gamergate controversy or Jimbo's talk page, where I'm sure you're welcome. Leave this board to the experts. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm surprised we're even having this discussion as this was an obvious call, and those supporting unblock all appear to be involved parties. We're well past the point with this article where we should be leaving out tea and cookies for editors with an axe to grind against the subject of the article. These are SPAs headed here from Reddit and 4chan and God knows where else, and we shouldn't be pretending they are all innocent new editors who just happened to wander to this specific article to begin their career as apprentice encyclopedia authors. This is the encyclopedia where everyone can edit, but not the encyclopedia where everyone gets three chances to insult Zoe Quinn before we say pretty please and stop. An unblock request was already turned down by an uninvolved admin, so already have outside endorsement that this was a solid block, never mind all the comments here. All the editor in question has to do to get unblocked is show some awareness of the mistake and a promise to adhere to BLP policies, so that's hardly an impossible hurdle to overcome. Unblocking now without this step would send a message that their negative behavior was appropriate and would send a message to admins that steps taken to vigorously enforce BLP will be overturned if the subject of the article is unpopular enough. Gamaliel (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock for Snakebyte. Support topic ban User:Ryulong. His ownership and behavior across the project is disruptive. Neutral on topic bans for other users as univolved in specific edit conflicts. Giant WP:OWN problem that has nothing to do with BLP. Per Heyward. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Medeis, you're probably going to have to start a separate thread for this. Personally, I think the temperature there might go down some if Ryulong focuses their considerable attention elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Holy shit, Medeis let it go. It was just a fucking screen cap.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock I don't care what the editor said in violation of BLP, especially at this point with all the WP:INVOLVED admin activity and other abusive admin activity going on with this topic area, which includes this block. An indef without warning for a first offense in a situation where there was bad behavior all around hardly strikes me as appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That you don't care is reason enough to disregard the rest of your commentary--which consists of nothing else but unfounded accusations. I think you should try and focus on abusive editors a bit more; your defense of User:Tabascoman77, blocked for NOTHERE but guilty of a blatant and egregious BLP violation in the same affair already suggests that you cannot edit objectively (or discuss policy competently) in this area. Drmies (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't care because there really is no way it warranted an indefinite block without warning by an involved admin who calls Vivian James an attack cartoon. Further note is that the admin in question has made several over-the-top or incompetent admin actions. There are too many involved admin actions going on in this topic area. Granted, I ignore it when Dreadstar or Cuchullain full-protect the article because of other editors edit-warring, but those are still involved admin actions. As far as Tabascoman, if the supposedly egregious BLP violation is the edit that got suppressed, I assure you it was far from egregious. I do not even believe it warranted revision deletion, which was carried out by Dreadstar, let alone suppression.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and support firm administrative action against any editor engaged in BLP shenanigans regarding "Gamergate" and Zoe Quinn. It has gone on too long. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The block is clearly way off: indefinitely blocking an editor who has registered in 2012 and had a clean block log for a single talk-page BLP violation. Indef block should rarely be the first measure, especially for not a singular violation. --Pudeo' 10:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  I'll also add that Dreadstar made a similar bad indefinite block recently for CSDarrow; see. Basically everyone thought it wasn't solid and the unblock request was accepted. If feminism/antifeminsm topics gets you heated up, perhaps you should leave admin duties for someone else because administrative actions should never be done in the heat of the moment. It really shows in the quality of those decisions. --Pudeo' 10:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean the block where you were the only one to voice dissatisfaction of the block on CSDarrow's talk page? Blackmane (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and PhilKnight wanted a clarification as to whether it should be considered an Arbitration Enforcement block. So basically the "everyone" who disagreed with the block was...you. Blackmane (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh right, the block was overturned just because I was dissatisfied with it. Time to re-read the section then. Already Cailil [30] noted that indef block was the wrong sanction at that time and recommended that Dreadstar wouldn't go for it. (CSDarrow however has been sanctioned after that incident too and is currently on a 1-year block). --Pudeo' 16:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read either of their comments. Neither indicated that the block was bad, per se, although, granted, commentary indicated the duration was considered long. I would expect that had Dreadstar set a fixed duration block, there would have been no dissent,but that is by the by. So in that regard, I still maintain my original point that the block was not considered "bad", except by yourself, although the block duration attracted disagreement. I was party to the later discussion that upheld the 1 year block on CSDarrow. Blackmane (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support gamergate topic ban instead of block - the editor has suggested this, and I think it would resolve the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Agreed with PhilKnight. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what good a topic ban will do for an editor who exclusively and problematically edits in a single topic area. I think the block was fine and oppose an unblock, largely because this is just another account that has been resurrected to steer the content of the GamerGate article to a fringe viewpoint (namely that the incidents related to gamergate are unrelated to harassment or sexism but instead are just some innocent investigation into journalistic integrity in games). Protonk (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Question - If I'm remembering the correct case, the editor in question had posted a statement, which taken as-is, was a BLP violation. He then argued it was a typo. Have I got that right? And if so, did he fix his typo? Or did he leave it in place and argue about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, and drop the throbbing shaft stick; per Gamaliel and Cullen. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support temporal topic ban Also topic ban for Ryulong, what is it the 4th ANI you got this month? Can any admin tell me with a straight face that his behaviour is acceptable? He constantly bites noobs, it's uncivil in almost all his responses and has a STRONG bias on the subject, going so far as to insult and calling supporters of said movement fags, giving his past history while being an admin, is anyone even surprised? You should look at Masem, a totally neutral editor, civil and helping noobs, has included both the journalistic aspect and the misogyny aspect, on the total opposite of Ryulong Loganmac (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  If anyone is going to be banned, it has to be you and every other account being used solely for the purpose of pushing a point of view on the article that is not supported by reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many times someone decides to drag my ass to ANI in a week, in a month, or in a year. If the community decides that there's nothing actionable, then I've done nothing wrong to require anything that you want to be done to me. And would you stop fucking bringing up my comments from off the site? None of this bullshit would have ever happened if some gater hadn't gone to contact me off-site because they had a bone to pick with me concerning comments I've made on-site. And I would not be espousing my opinions off-site if this bullshit had not been picked up by these same fucking people who have nothing better to do in their lives than complain that their precious hobby is open to women and casuals now. I've never let any of my personal opinions on this subject enter the article space. I've even heavily contributed content that discusses what you seem to term as my opposition. If there's any outcome to this thread, it better be that we kick you all to the curb like 4chan and Reddit had done before we did. I've already decided to voluntarily cease editing the article because I don't need any more stress considering everything else going on in my life. But you can go on and on about how I used "gamergate fags" on my personal Twitter account, and go "Ryulong's a homophobe", "Ryulong is biased", and every other baseless complaint sent my way because I dared to espouse an opinion on a conservativistic movement that only exists because one man wanted the internet to hate his ex-girlfriend and it just so happened she made a video game no one liked and her new boyfriend worked for some third rate video game website no one really likes in the first place so people began to falsely rally behind a movement seeking journalistic integrity without actually addressing anything other than people who crowdsourced for the game no one likes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - OK kiddies, time to hop out of the pool because it's time for the adult swim; no one in this project is ever going to be banned or topic-banned or blocked as a result of people voting on a different editor entirely and tacking on an "oh yea and Block X" while you're at it!" to the end of their input. If you have concerns about an editor in a topic area, then you shall start a brand-new ANI section on that editor specifically, make your argument as to why you're doing it and what result you and, and provide evidence to back up your assertion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 00:34, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

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

Apparent paid editing

G2003 (talk · contribs) has been writing elaborate blatant advertizements for years and this seems to be the sole purpose of the account. I think a block is appropriate. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Hard to know how much evidence I can provide here without being accused of WP:OUTING, but G2003 is almost certainly a paid editor – I have seen his advertisement on a site, which also contains reviews by people linked to the articles the account has created. He has also been adding links to his own personal/business website, and some time ago created an article on himself (since deleted). The situation is made more problematic by the fact that he still denies being a paid editor. I gave him a warning yesterday about continuing to edit with a COI, but he hasn't responded yet. Number 57 11:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any advertisements by G2003, at least AFAIK. But I can't help thinking it's not a coincidence one of the first articles G2003 worked upon was PeoplePerHour a freelance work website. Following the link to the website G2003 helpfully provided [31], and then clicking "buy" and "find freelancers" and A quick search confirms there 22 people are advertising wikipedia related services there [32] (to avoid WP:outing, I've specifically not linked any of them to G2003 or anyone else). Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I would say that G20003 is probably doing paid editing. Just went through first page of contribs

• dif added inline hyperlink to a personal website, immediately reverted. this is the link added, which is for someone named Gareth Johnson who does PR/communications work for hire
• dif same edit on another aricle, also immediately reverted
• created article then edited, immediately PRODed
• created this article on a designer, pretty promotional
• added significant chunk of text to company article here, quite promo "The first stage of this development has sold faster than any other in the company’s history"
• currently working on a glow-y BLP article User:G2003/Ashvir_Sangha
• created this article with dupe refs (to make it seem there are more sources than there are?)

that is just the first page of contribs. Going further back there are more like this.

I wouldn't be surprised if this editor was a paid editor and if so, not disclosing it is a violation of the Terms of Use. Not sure where things go from here. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It's more than probably. Like I said, there are reviews on his advertisement (on a site mentioned above) that are directly linked to articles created by the account (I can provide these privately if anyone requires definite proof). Anyway, I have been keeping an eye on the account for some time and will continue to monitor their edits. If they don't respond to my most recent warning and continue to churn out rubbish articles, I may block them and encourage them to communicate. Number 57 17:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at some of the articles created by this editor, some of them are deserving of deletion, and some are just over-hyped.

• Fabryan, although created over a previously deleted article, appears to be a notable fashion line - they have good writeups in Vogue. There's too much promotional material in the article, though.
• Robert Colville (publisher) is a non-notable publisher of a minor forex trading site. That article is proposed for deletion, and probably should be deleted.
• Out to Swim is a minor swimming club, and may fail WP:ORG. It's a close call; I put a proposed deletion template on it.
• Matt Woosey is a minor musician, and that article probably fails WP:MUSIC.

It's not clear what's paid editing, and what's just article creation. John Nagle (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor's articles on financial organizations, including Tristan Capital Partners and DAMAC Properties, are promotional happy-talk articles. Hotel Carbon Measurement Initiative is almost a copyvio from the organization's FAQ. (That article is in AfD.) Those three look an awful lot like paid PR. John Nagle (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Out to Swim and Gay Star News articles appears to be organisations the editor is involved with. All the others appear to be paid. Number 57 22:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

They've been editing for four years, but have never replied to any warning on Talk. Their only edits on their own talk page seem to be deletions to clear out warnings. Their editing rate was relatively low until September of 2014, with 860 edits over 4 years. Then the rate picked up, with 50 edits in the last 5 days. It's perhaps time to do something to get their attention. Cleaning up their stuff takes a lot of time from other editors. John Nagle (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to not be an admin, like me, I think we're missing a bit of their history here. A look at their talk page e.g. [33] shows a fair few deleted AFCs. I looked at this briefly before based on the info revealed above. Now that G2003 has commented I presume it's okay to say that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kayzure sakar appears to have been an early attempt at paid editing (since it was never completed I presume there was no payment). Tristan was a later more succesful one. I didn't really look that well, but to be honest I get the feeling that Number 57 is right and a lot of the editing was paid. (Although PeoplePerHour may be another exception.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Apologies I have done some paid editing through PeoplePerHour. I have removed all advertisements offering this service and will not do any further paid advertising.G2003 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Who for? You are required to disclose this under the Terms of Use. MER-C 23:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:ChestonMak1996 - Account using my real name

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

---

This user, originally only IP addresses, was vandalising the North West Rail Link page for the past week by replacing names in cited references and the article. Now this person has gone more extreme and created my account using my actual name. Please ban this user (and if possible delete, otherwise I may be mistaken for this user) ASAP.

Also, if needed, I can also prove that that is my real name. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't anywhere on your userpage stated your name so I fail to see how this "IP" would know? .... Anyway someone having the same real name as you isn't in any way blockable unless it's an impersonation which isn't what I'm seeing here..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone having the same name as you isn't in any way blockable on username grounds. This user is quite clearly vandalising: both in this edit and this edit, he's changing around lots of facts, and even making substantive changes to citations that clearly were correct before. Repeated citation fraud, aside from everything else, is still grounds for a {{VOAblock}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Search my username Marcnut1996 on the web and you can see my real name associated with it, for example my Twitter account. I do not know how the IP knows my name but it is definitely an impersonation because he has reverted my edits several times in North West Rail Link stating "Vandalism by Marcnut1996 aka Cheston Mak" as a summary edit. Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, Nyttend. I appreciate your help. Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by 85.75.216.206

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

---

• 85.75.216.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP User:85.75.216.206 is repeatedly violating WP:MOSMAC on Macedonia. When I informed the IP about WP:MOSMAC and asked them to stop edit warring, breaching MOSMAC and start discussing, the IP threatened I'd be "reported for not respecting UN ethics" (whatever that means). [34] Though probably not seriously meant, it still violates WP:LEGAL, and was followed by [35] I've asked for temporary semi-protection of the article.Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a week and warned the IP of possible sanction in terms of WP:ARBMAC. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Vandalism Help

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

---

Hi, I am a newbie of wikipedia. I need some assistance and guidance from you. Somebody add "hoax" content in "gook" page.

240F:15:A64F:1:59E7:FB65:DB1A:8A6B According to whois, He is japanese user.[36]

For example, This user blanked out original content from reference, and add hoax content which does not exit. (can't find such thing in any references)[37] This can be considered as vandalism, right? Maybe this person will keep change edit that way in future, without any explanation. In my conclusion, his edit is cleary hoax and considered as vandalism. How can i do now? In this case, i need request to page protection? or i need request to user block ? anyone help? I request to any admin should inspect this user carefully. --Hylkldab1 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hylkldab1: A warning to the user, left on the IP's talk page, would've been in order here. {{uw-vandalism1}} would have worked for a template. I'd leave a warning, but the edit is two months old. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. thanks. i added warning tag on his talk page. edit is two months old. yes, seems like nobody care that page. also i did not watch wikipedia for several months. should i request to page protection ? What will be next procedure to vandalism(added hoax) edit? --Hylkldab1 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Page protection would be declined, because there has not been any recent vandalism. Best advice would be to start keeping an eye on the page. If there starts to be frequent vandalism, then we can look at blocking the offending user and/or protecting the page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

ok. thanks to your advice. --Hylkldab1 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

WCVB98swell: Threatening users, vandalism, 3RR, Edit warring

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

---

The user has been causing havoc here at Wikipedia.

Edit warring/Threatening users:

WCVB98swell violated the Three-Revert Rule and has been edit warring with Trivialist and insulted as well as threatened him and myself to get banned.

Examples from the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20th_Television&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:20th_Television
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Small_Wonder_%28TV_series%29&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SportsNet_New_York&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Animation_Studios&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warner_Bros._Television_Distribution&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_assets_owned_by_21st_Century_Fox&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp&action=history

User was warned several times during this month of his disruptive editing:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WCVB98swell&oldid=628641981

Then user removed his warnings, saying that he will delete his talk page and was warned again by TheGGoose.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WCVB98swell&oldid=628703047

User once again removed his warnings from talk page, and I warned him along with Trivialist.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WCVB98swell

King Shadeed | Talk 15:40, October 11, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. WCVB98swell has been repeatedly warned, and they're a net negative to the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I get the impression the user is very young, but they create works for others and really don't seem to listen, so I guess it's time for a block. I've blocked for 48 hours for slow edit warring and disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

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

Attempted censorship at Bryant & Stratton College again - probably sock

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

---

There's a continuing effort to remove Laurie Bembenek from the list of notable alumni at Bryant & Stratton College, even though she has her own sourced article. It was User:Goldarab doing it before they were blocked, so it's probably them back again as an IP. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say Bembenek ever attended, let alone graduated from, that college? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There does appear to be a lack of evidence to back up their attendance at this college. They might be noteable but there doesn't appear to be anything to link the two together. Might be better off leaving it out until someone can reliably link the two. Amortias (T)(C) 22:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The source book is available on snippet view and it says she attended, she took an associate degree in fashion merchandising management. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Diannaa any chance you could add the citation as it was sitting there with an unsourced tag since may 2010. Amortias (T)(C) 22:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, where is the link to that fact in the Bembenek article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that the Unabomber is listed among the graduates of Harvard, but he was nationally known, and there are lots and lots of famous Harvardians in the lost. I'm not so sure Bembenek was so well-covered in the media. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I re-removed Bembenek from that college's list. If proper citations are provided, re-adding her could be considered, but it's not necessarily a ticket to inclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And Diannaa added it back, with that citation. But if it's not worth mentioning in Bembenek's own article, why does it belong in the school's article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Bugs, I did that before seeing your post here. I really don't care either way, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It was important enough in her life that she mentions it in some detail in her autobiography. The only argument I've seen for excluding her is that it's bad for the school's reputation, which is not a valid argument. I've restored it. Lists of notable alumni and faculty are a bog-standard feature of articles on universities, high schools and colleges. And there is considerable question whether she is in fact a murderer rather than a victim of a frameup by a notoriously sexist department. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa added the citation to the Bembenek article, so all seems well, and in fact the citation is no longer needed in the school article, just the link to Bembenek. If someone persists in deleting the name on the dubious grounds that it's bad for the school, the page could be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I could also point out that the notion of it being bad for the school's reputation is not supported by any evidence, hence it's original research. There's no indication that the school cares about this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats regarding Iron Man

Since WP:NLT states to report legal threats here, I am notifying administrators here of a possible situation where a couple of editors have been legally threatened by a media figure. Details can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Blatant legal threats, by two different IP's, so probably an IP-hopper. Can't be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, that's a pretty clear legal threat. A WP:DOLT analysis shows that the dispute appears to center on a minor mention of Elon Musk in the article for the 2008 Iron Man film, where apparently Robert Downey, Jr. had met Musk prior to his portrayal of Tony Stark. I have two points to make in this vein: First, regardless of the correctness of our article, nothing in there rises to the level of meriting legal threats (i.e., it's neither libelous nor portrays a living person in a false light). Second, individuals so close to the film's production as Downey and Favreau (the director) make it fairly clear that Downey's portrayal was influenced by a meeting with Musk. The claim in the article is given very minor prominence, which is appropriate per WP:DUE. Given we have an IP hopper here, or an anonymizing VPN, a rangeblock may be worth considering. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What about contacting the email address stated in the messages to the editors? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think emails or other forms of contact should be left to the WMF's legal department. I have now blocked 176.67.82.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who threatened to issue a cease and desist letter. De728631 (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And the article has been temporarily semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that any e-mails should be left either to WMF or not made at all. Even if the given e-mail address appears to be legitimate, offering an e-mail address is sometimes bait to be outed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any faith in their statements. Marvel has enough lawyers to know what channels to use. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats are a bluff at least 99.9 percent of the time, which is one reason their perps can't be tolerated. If the problem continues, probably better to semi the article (which has already been done) than to range block other possibly-innocent users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That email address is most dubious; it indicates someone at a specific firm who seems quite unlikely to be the fellow charged with editing one line on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the email addresses that was left is to Jeff Klein at DKCNews. There is a Jeff Klein at the PR firm DKCNews and he does work with Marvel Entertainment, http://dkcnews.com/jeffrey-klein/ GB fan 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing how this person is hopping on IPs from the UK to Romania, probably safe to say that it is an impostor. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be a courtesy to notify the real guy about this impostor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the other email address was the guy who founded the company but is no longer involved in the day-to-day operations. I'm quite dubious he's coming back to work to fuss over a single line of Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't 109.103.28.89 be blocked too, for these legal threats [38] [39] ? Cardamon (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And for gross personal attacks as well. I took a look at AIV and there's a big backlog there, so it looks like the admins have taken Columbus Day off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to all who acted on this. Really appreciate it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You thanked them about 20 minutes before they actually did anything, but all appears well now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikibullying and disruptive editing

Admin intervention may be required to look into possible Wikibullying and a wide variety of disruptive edits and page move warring from the following editor: RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These issues have been going on for several months now, and the editor in question has received numerous warnings about her conduct on Wikipedia. On the 11 October, she posted this angrily worded message on my talk page. Other problematic edits include removing maintenance templates without stating a reason for doing so. Not using edit summaries, although that is a minor issue. Move warring on articles. I even offered to assist the editor so that she may learn what Wikipedia is all about, and an administrator has warned her a few times for her disruptive behaviour. However, she continues to take no notice and does things in her own way without taking into consideration of the consequences she may be getting herself into. So I would appreciate if an administrator would kindly intervene and take any action that is necessary. Thank you. Wes Mouse 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wes Mouse, please don't revert other people's user talk pages like this. Any warning message may be removed by those who received it which is seen as evidence that they have also read the warnings per WP:TPO. Only truly administrative notes like block messages and the like have to remain visible for their relevant duration. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had undone that, as I had clicked the revert by accident. Doing two things at once got me distracted. Sorry. Wes Mouse 17:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I had clicked cancel, and assumed it had done so. Oh heck! And now it won't let me undo it. Wes Mouse 17:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done it for you. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is ever so kind of you. Wes Mouse 17:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

After looking into the edit history of RebeccaTheAwesomeXD I wouldn't speak of bullying. A single note directed at Wes Mouse saying that Rebecca would get angry is hardly a case of bullying and I wouldn't even call it incivil. Still, Rebecca needs to communicate more with other editors and should try to learn more about Wikipedia's manual of style and procedures (article naming conventions, uploading of media, etc.). Given the multitude of warnings she has received so far by editors other than Wes, I would think that a tutorial is a good idea, but it takes two to tango and the future tutor should probably not be Wes Mouse. All in all I fail to see bad faith in Rebecca's edits and I'm wondering whether her edits have become so disruptive as to warrant a block, so what should we do here?

I do see a problem though with Wes Mouse's edits, too. E.g. this removal of a section that announced an uncontroversial YouTube video without hotlinking, or the frequent interaction at music articles started by Rebecca and the massive templating of her talk page which might look like haunting (for the record: I do template the regulars), even though I'm convinced that Wes is only trying to help Rebecca become a better editor. Perhaps a voluntary interaction ban for, say, a month would do the trick of getting Rebecca to cooperate with other editors. What do others think? De728631 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

An interaction ban might be more difficult than one imagines, as we both edit the same genre of articles as well as on the same WikiProject, plus I also write the newsletter for Project Eurovision to which Rebecca would be in receipt of. In regards to the tutorial, I had hoped that Rebecca would seek the adoption process, despite the fact that I also offered myself. Naturally I would not have forced myself to tutoring Rebecca in the event she did want to take that option. However, the matter is a lot more complexed than one may be aware of. Discussions have taken place on several user's talk pages regarding the editing pattern - and a few editor's including an administrator agreed to keep an eye on Rebecca's contributions for a period of time. Such discussions include one in my archive and one in CT Cooper archive. Don't get me wrong, as some contributions that Rebecca has made are excellent, and shows potential of becoming an outstanding Wikipedian. But others that have caused problems and tensions between some project Eurovision members, have been worrying. For example, media related incidents, not abiding to verifiability, changing dates of birth on BLP articles without checking sources. Also removing speedy deletion tags and other maintenance tags for no apparent reason, nor using the edit summary or article talk pages to explain her reasons. When she gets asked about them, she just ignores people - and yes that can be frustrating at times. Wes Mouse 18:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As for seeing a problem with this removal, I see no problem whatsoever, as it was done based on the guidance at WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos. Plus Rebecca added the entire chuck without any citations to verify what she added. So challenging unsourced material is now problematic? Isn't sourcing content the core policy that binds Wikipedia together? Wes Mouse 18:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Making comments like this one is by far more problematic and again removing maintenance tags that are there for a valid reason. Wes Mouse 18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca often edits constructively, but this overshadowed by inappropriate behaviour and a general unwillingness to communicate and work with other editors, even if I wouldn't go as far as to call it wiki-bullying. Responses to Rebecca's edits may not have been perfect at times, but an interaction ban is over-the-top at this point and probably wouldn't help matters. I think the best strategy going forward is compassion and patience. I understand why people find Rebecca's actions frustrating, but my impression looking over her edits is that she is slowly heeding warnings. If there are further problematic edits then non-templated warnings should be issued, with a block only given only as a final resort in the event it becomes clear that she isn't listening. CT Cooper · talk 14:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment, CT. That sounds like a good solution to me. It may take a while and a lot more patience but in the end it will probably work. That said, I don't see a need for immediate administrative intervention either. By the way, Wes, I don't think there was anything wrong regarding WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos because Rebecca didn't embed a video file nor post a link while that project guideline even allows for linking to official releases on Youtube. And imo you only need inline citations for controversial content. Verifiability can be a quick search at Youtube or Google. But then that's my personal preference. De728631 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Unbased allegations and public defamation by user:Supreme Deliciousness

I would like to point out that on 29 August 2014, user:Supreme Deliciousness publicly accused me of inappropriate canvassing (in capital letters), while having a content dispute on Syrian Civil War-related pages, which are also bound to Syrian Civil War community sanctions. The incident took place as part of my attempt to gain attention to discussion on main Syrian Civil War page, by notifying ALL related users from previous relevant discussions, no matter their opinions (clearly of all spectrum, including Supreme himself!). Despite clarifying that to Supreme Deliciousness and warning him that blatant public accusations with no basis can be considered as personal attack, he has not yet removed his accusation, which in my opinion is highly unfair and bullying against me as a regular editor on Syrian Civil War pages. Request to enforce him removing this "INAPPROPRIATE CANVASSING" comment ASAP, or else he should supply evidence of "canvassing" and file a complaint against me (as he proved to be able to in regard to user:Legacypac just 4 days ago).GreyShark (dibra) 18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As I have understood it, you started by presenting a wrong view of the problem (that it's about adding Israel as a belligerent to the Syrian Civil War and not about showing that Israel occupies a part of that country, no matter if they are a party to the war or not), and you are still portraying it as such. So no matter who you are notifying about it, if you are portraying the problem in a wrong way, I don't think it's acceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Iris, your support of Supreme in the relevant content dispute doesn't have anything to do with those public accusations and defamation, which is inappropriate at least.GreyShark (dibra) 21:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I clearly responded to what you wrote here above, where you defended yourself by saying you notified every party. I wanted to comment on that part as I myself have noticed this in our discussion. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus in adding links to other Wikipedias instead of red-links?

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

---

I see in Benjamin Walter they have added a coupe of links to people's articles in fr.WP. I reverted them and they did it again. Before I go ahead with this, I want to see what the consensus is. I have not encountered this issue before. I think, and prefer, to have red links for people that might be notable, awaiting an article, as opposed to sending users to another language Wikipedia which is useless if you do not read that language. This also gives the impression the links are complete, when in fact they may not have an article in en.WP. Is there a guideline or rule I missed on this one? Note in case it is not clear, I am talking of inline text links, not interwiki links on the "languages" section on the left for entire articles. I did read WP:MOSLINK, WP:REDLINK, and WP:INTERWIKI which show the mechanics, but are they appropriate in this case? -- Alexf^(talk) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There's also Help:Interlanguage links#Other, which, like the rest, doesn't show a consensus, though it provides reasoning for use in article text, so I guess it's at least saying they're not disallowed? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say this is a discussion which would be better suited to one of the village pumps. My guess is we shouldn't be inlining links to other languages, but I have no idea if there's been a lot of discussion on the topic. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The {{ill}} template offers a nice compromise for this case. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not know of {{ill}}. It plays well in the interim. Posted to the article. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of turning this into WP:VPT shouldn't there be a software-based way to do this involving Wikidata? For instance, if you click a redlink and Wikidata knows that's the English title for something we have an article on in another language, it suggests those as alternatives? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Except for wiktionary, hell no. --NE2 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons given by the OP, I think it's a bad idea to randomly link between different language Wikipedias in place of actual articles. I really don't see linking to the other language helping most users. If someone can read French comfortably enough that linking to the article was just as good, why would they be reading the English Wikipedia instead of the French Wikipedia? If their preference is for English, why would linking to the French be just as good? Yes, multilingualism is more prevalent than monolingualism, but most people still have only one L1 (regardless of how great their L2s are).

And if one is thinks there's relevant material on the French Wikipedia, why not translate it? WP:RS doesn't say anything about sources having to be in English. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts Ian. I asked before starting what could become an edit war which might force me to end up blocking the guy, and I want rules, or consensus before I do. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I came across a similar situation a couple weeks ago and found there was no English Wikipedia guideline against these types of wikilinks (some other language Wikipedias do prohibit them). I'm not wild about the idea, especially with BLP's, as we can't control the quality of the target article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

{{ill}} is used in the featured article Departures (film) and lots of other articles. It is clear from the parenthesised country code following the redlink that the reader is not following a normal wikilink. Even if a user cannot read the foreign language directly, automated translation software is often good enough to give a reasonable overview, so I would not discount the link's helpfulness. --Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• When I read Wikipedia, I usually start with something I specifically want, and then I get directed all over the place following blue links - which, to me, mean there's more stuff for me to read (and that's the fun of it). I would find it frustrating and annoying if those links started taking me to foreign-language articles that I can't read, and I think most people would too. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A while ago, I did some work on a list of specific people, mostly Hungarians. When the person didn't have an English language article, I first entered a red-link to the English wikipedia, then an inter-language link displaying the text "in Hungarian", e.g. [[Tamás Esze]] ([[:hu:Esze Tamás|in Hungarian]]). That way it's obvious what people would get if clicking on the links. The best thing to do would have been to translate the Hungarian text and write an article in English, but as I don't actually know Hungarian that wasn't an option. (Google translate would be helpful for a reader, but not good enough to actually base an article on). Daveosaurus (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor has unilaterally closed an ongoing talk page discussion

See Talk:Colonel Sanders for the closed discussion. Even while people were continuing to add to the discussion, and it's not an RfC, Winkelvi has closed it and is insisting on keeping it closed. I have never seen this occur before. There was no consensus for closing this discussion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. No one was adding to the discussion at the time of closure. See here [40] and here [41]. Also note the editor reporting said the following, "You're absolutely right. Without a strong reference, this matter is moot" here [42]. The discussion was closed after a conclusion was reached by the editor reporting here who had appeared to come full circle and realize that adding content on the article subject's religion was not going to be possible at this time, making the original point "moot" (his words). Prior to this, there had been a good amount of disruptive and unproductive back and forth between the editor reporting here as well as an IP who has been disruptive elsewhere today. In closing the discussion because it appeared to be over, my hope was to keep further disruption and off-topic conversation, further devolving the positive ending into another cluster of insults and personal attacks. I don't know where the editor has been, but I've seen numerous talk page discussions closed in the same manner. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the other participants didn't consider it closed. One person doesn't have a unilateral position to close a discussion. I never reached a conclusion that the discussion was over, but that given a current lack of reference, the matter was moot as of now (but info could change the situation). But as anyone can see in the discussion, I had inquired about a reference and was waiting to hear about it. Bottom line: The discussion wasn't over, but one person decided it was. I don't think that's civil or constructive. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, re: your hope to "keep further disruption and off-topic conversation, further devolving the positive ending into another cluster of insults and personal attacks", I didn't see that happening. Everything seemed on-topic from where I'm sitting. While some of the discourse wasn't the most civil, I've seen far worse than that. There was no significant devolving. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, since I started the discussion, shouldn't I have some say in whether the discussion is finished for all time? But even if I thought it was finished, I wouldn't close it. I am open to others' ideas on the subject, as much as they want to talk about it, even if I disagree with them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any of the participants arguing for trying to post the Colonel's religion in the infobox. And whatever religion he followed, I would be shocked if it in any way informed his selling of chicken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bugs, if we were only including information that was relevant to the colonel's selling of fried chicken, we would not include his birth date, his family background, his education, his military service, or his prior employment history, either. Someone's religion (or lack thereof) is key personal datapoint; that's why the Template:Infobox person includes a religion parameter. As for the closing of a talk page discussion, any unilaterally closed discussion may be unilaterally reopened. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This type of argument, which more often happens in reference to Jewish folks who are notable for something not having to do with Judaism, reminds me of this one: A tourist in Jerusalem is visiting the Tomb of the Unknown Israeli Soldier. He sees a name on the tomb, Irving Levine or whatever. The tourist questions how this qualifies as the Unknown Soldier. The guard says, "As a tailor, he was known. As a soldier? Meh!"" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an argument, and that belongs in the discussion that was closed. The issue here is unilaterally closing an ongoing discussion without consensus to do so. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: An editor with several beefs against me has decided to step in an unclose the discussion at the Sanders talk page. Without weighing in here, by the way, and before this discussion has been closed/decided upon. (see here [43], here [44], and here [45]. I won't edit war there over this. It's ridiculous to do so, and the other editor is just looking for me to get blocked, anyway. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As an uninvolved editor, I looked at the discussion, saw that it was on-going, and have re-opened it. Now Wv is trying to edit war to keep it closed. This needs to stop, or needs to be stopped. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider the idea that what you did was untoward and leave the discussion open. I'm sorry if someone is tormenting you for any reason, but the discussion was indeed ongoing and therefore there was no consensus to close. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, Stevie, I don't "have several beefs" with Wv, nor have I been "tormenting him." I had the temerity to disagree with him on a couple of content-related issues. (Interestingly enough, I've seen Wv do some great work on the project, and even given him a barnstar for that work.) LHM^{ask me a question} 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't investigated the claim, but I was speaking in a general sense. I wasn't intending to cast any aspersions on your behavior. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• If it had not already been re-opened, I would have done so myself as an uninvolved third-party. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. I hadn't heard of Winkelvil until about two weeks ago, but what I have seen is problematic. He is the editor who instigated the Chelsea Clinton situation among other problematic trends I've noticed. -- Calidum 00:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed. I hadn't heard of you until a couple of weeks ago, either. Does that have anything to do with anything? Not that I can see. Just like your poor assessment of an action and opinion regarding BLP policy (BLPNAME, to be exact) that has nothing to do with anything (especially not this report) but has been supported by several editors and not considered "problematic" by them at all. Your attempt to tip the scales negatively based on bad faith is transparently noted, Cal. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. -- Calidum 00:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not even close to being the same thing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's not usual practice to "close" talk page discussions unless they are an RFC, which should be done be someone who hasn't participated in the discussion.
• There's not "close" exception to WP:3rr -- edit warring over a close tag is still edit warring.
• If a discussion truly has come to a consensus, closer or unclosing it doesn't actually matter -- it doesn't change the consensus.
• As there's clearly not a consensus, discussion should continue; WP:RFC is recommended if more viewpoints would be helpful. NE Ent 01:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• If they want to resume arguing over a point they already agreed upon, I suppose they must. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparent agreement was on one aspect. There is nothing the matter with continuing discussion on closely related points. Regular article talks are not closed in this way in the vast majority of cases. If the talk dies down, it will be archived 90 days after the end. Unilaterally closing the discussion was the issue here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Either way, you'd have a hard time finding sourcing demonstrating that his specific Christian denomination had anything to do with building his chicken empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Looking at articles about other fast-food founders, there's nothing about religion for Ray Kroc, Dave Thomas or Glen Bell. What's special about Col. Sanders? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Nothing? HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • That's an argument that belongs in the affected discussion on Talk:Colonel Sanders, not here. This discussion isn't about whether references can or cannot be found. Again, this discussion is about a unilateral closing of a talk page discussion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Instead of coming here, you could simply have started a new discussion on that talk page, addressing whatever your next complaint about the Colonel's artcle is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wee Curry Monster's topic ban lifting

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned from editing articles related to the Falkland Islands on May 2013 for "making discussion to reach a consensus almost impossible"[46] In that period of time, work on the main article began to flow again, eventually leading to a successful FA drive, a status that had been pursued for years. To see that period of trouble-free collaboration, see these edits.

6 months later, Wee Curry Monster appealed his topic ban[47], agreeing "to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics". As a result, the ban was lifted.

Right away, several new articles were created: Esteban Mestivier, Antonina Roxa, José María Pinedo. However, shortly after these efforts were concluded behavior problems started to arise again, reaching its climax in the past few weeks.

Wee Curry Monster has at least three times broken his 1RR condition for ban lifting:

• Top Gear controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revert 1: [48] 21:27, 10 October 2014

Revert 2: [49] 21:40, 10 October 2014

• Ian Gow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion at ANI: [50]

Discussion at talk page: [51]

WCM's uncivil summaries/edits were conveniently cleaned-up, so we can't really see them: [52]

The proof of the 1RR violation can be extracted from the following conversation: [53][54][55][56]

• Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revert 1: [57] 20:00, 11 April 2014

Revert 2: [58] 21:34, 11 April 2014

As I anticipated in the topic ban lifting, he continues to push for the self-published source Getting it Right by Pascoe & Pepper in his arguments,[59][60] while at the same time admitting that self-published sources are not reliable.[61] At this point, he doesn't really use this source in articles, but he uses it to back dubious theories at talk page, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE of the normal consensus building process.

Wee Curry Monster excels at article creation, but as a former British soldier his WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior prevents him from editing collaboratively on nationalistic subjects. --Langus (t) 08:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at this: WCM has clearly not violated 1RR at Ian Gow - he made one revert in November 2013 and one in May 2014 (page edit history). He has reverted more than once on the Top Gear controversies article, but it's clear from the talk page that the editor he reverted is in a minority of one as far as the opinion on their additions go. He also did revert more than once on the Falkland Islands article, but that was nothing more than a spelling issue - hardly anything controversial. As the latter was in April, I'm wondering why it's being raised now. Number 57 08:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"As a former British soldier his WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior..." - did I read that correctly? What on earth does his status as a former British solider have to do with it? StAnselm (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Number57, given the admin deletion involved in the Ian Gow incident I was under the impression that the article history isn't really showing the whole picture, specially since editors who were involved at the time noted that there was an edit war and that WCM broke its engagement. (Please do follow the links [62][63]). On the Top Gear article, I don't know if I'm following you correctly... are you saying that what the other user was doing was WP:VANDALISM? Because that's one of the few exceptions of WP:3RR.

Regarding the Falklands revert, I disagree on it being uncontroversial as I remind how it sparked this comment from the reverted editor, who was there helping us reaching FA. Revertions tend to feel like a slap in the face, specially when they come with 30 minutes in between. I'm raising it now because at the time I thought it would be fair to give WCM the chance to prove he had change, or even to do so in the following months.

StAnselm I take that back, I am generalizing. But WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior is still there. In the past few weeks WCM has been an obstacle in reaching consensus through normal discussion of sources. --Langus (t) 15:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about re the Gow article. The discussions are about incivility on the talk page (largely an IP using the c word). There are no deleted revisions of the Gow article that I can see as an admin. Also, please ping me if you respond to me again - I can't keep track of various discussions all over the place. Cheers, Number 57 21:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Response

I am in two minds about responding, I'm not sure this warrants any response. None of the edits referred to above are problematic and I have avoided making the mistakes that lead to the topic ban in the first place. I would note, however, this is not the first time Langus-TxT has presented diffs in a misleading way seeking that sanctions are placed upon me.

1. Ian Gow is completely unrelated to the topic ban but I didn't violate 1RR.
2. Top Gear controversies was a clear WP:BLP issue but the option I chose was not to edit war but alert the issue of WP:OR and WP:SYN at WP:NORN [64], per WP:BRD I started the talk page discussion. John can confirm the WP:BLP issue.
3. Falkland Islands [65] and [66] are both minor corrections to grammar. They were done in collaboration with editors working toward achieving FA status. Really after nearly a year of editing the best example he can find of a 1RR violation is collaboration to improve the article to FA status.

The only person who has been edit warring on Latin American topics recently is Langus-TxT on both David Jewett and Juan Manuel de Rosas.

Langus is one of a group of three editors who at one time were haunting my every edit on Falklands topics, constantly accusing me of misconduct. I acknowledge my mistake was to vociferously defend myself against their attacks, since this gives the appearance of a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and I acknowelged it deterred others from commenting. I haven't repeated that mistake (I just ignore them) but have to note this is not the first time Langus-TxT has made a provocative reference to my service in the British Army.

WP:SPS does allow an exemption for recognised experts but I haven't proposed an edit using Pepper & Pascoe as a source, since I know Langus-TxT will revert on sight mention of their name. The comments referred to are A) helping another editor find information, B) a response to Langus falsely claiming only one historian had commented on a particular issue and finally C) removal of a distinctly unreliable source http://www.malvinense.com.ar/ (feel free to check it out).

I don't enjoy the drama boards, currently my plan as discussed with my mentor Nick-D was to take a break and I have discussed with another editor offline moving to a different topic area. I'll leave to others to judge whether there should be a WP:BOOMERANG to go with this frivolous complaint. WCM_email 12:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And how on earth would Pepper & Pascoe be recognized experts if they never published anything? The comments were made in the context of A) determining whether or not Vernet sought permission from both Britain and the United Provinces and B) determining whether or not David Jewett had orders to claim the Islands in 1820. Hardly the innocent reasons WCM claims. Here are the full conversations: [67][68] --Langus (t) 15:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Should 108.195.137.126 be blocked

Pro:

1. Clearly a sock or clone of User:Arthur Rubin/IP list.
2. Most of his edits are reverting my edits reverting other IPs who are the same person.

Con:

1. He had stopped 3 hours before I noticed it, and the IP is unlikely to be reused in the near future, but...
   1. The IP is even more unlikely to be used by anyone else, and some of the IPs in that range were reused within 2 years.

Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism to Ian Brown

A user repeatedly, over several months it would seem, changes a referenced location of Timperley, Altrincham to Manchester on the Ian Brown article (the editor incorrectly argues that Timperley is in Manchester - when even the articles themselves on Timperley and Altrincham make it clear these are not areas of Manchester.... the editor doesn't appear to understand the different between Manchester the city, and Greater Manchester the county). I have explained to the editor recently that Timperley is an area of Altrincham and that Altrincham is a town south of Manchester in the county of Greater Manchester. These are all facts, but this refuses to accept this - if you look at the edit summaries of some edits you will see some of their abusive comments using several usernames including WIKifact agent, Anastasiabbb, Bollockbrother and IP 90.213.94.117. The abuse is ongoing and would appreciate an experienced editor to look at the article and hopefully protect the page (I am aware this would stop myself from editing, but I am more interested in the page being accurate!).

92.8.19.201 (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Fearofreprisal again...

Someone wanna indef this guy? He gets a TBAN[69] on the historicity of Jesus, makes about 3 edits in basically unrelated areas, then after less than a week posts[70] an request for arbitration on the historicity of Jesus article, repeating the same personal attacks and non sequitur arguments that got him banned in the first place. He insisted just before his ban that I was a "Christian apologist" (I don't blame him for not knowing my actual theological convictions, but given my own history of arguing with Christians on here when they try to push an agenda, it was highly offensive), and continues to do the same to other users. He made an attack page that was all but speedied under the circumstances. It also appears to be a near-certainty that he was the one who posted the off-site canvassing that led to the article completely exploding just as we had finally reached a reasonable consensus. I'm not going to specifically notify him other than the above WP:PING, since his TBAN technically forbids him from responding here, or on his talk page, and posting on his talk page about this seems like it would be poking the weasel. If he wants to appeal the ban on his talk page after getting blocked he can do that, but frankly I think self-confessed POV-pushing sockpuppets should be blocked on-site and never unblocked until they disclose their main account's username.

(Sorry if Fearofreprisal already has done this -- but if that's the case then why wasn't the sock account already blocked.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that Fearofreprisal (FOR) created the account because of his/her fears of reprisal, hence the name. This was presumably because the editor intended from the start to make edits that might have negative consequences for the account. Another editor has indicated that FOR already has another account, though as far as I know it has not been disclosed (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Jeppiz). If FOR were to be indeffed would this, in practice, make the other account a sockpuppet? Paul B (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As a statement by me was mentioned, I provide the diff on which I based it [71].Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As for whether FoR's Arbcom filing constituted a breach of his topic ban: unfortunately, the original statement of the topic ban [72], formulated by TParis, did include an explicit exception "to appeal this topic ban or to seek Arbitration". If that hadn't been the case, I would have blocked him already. Incidentally, I think it was a very poor decision on TParis' part: when we topic-ban somebody because his involvement in a field of conflict has been persistently unhelpful, then the last thing we should invite him to do is to seek a way of escalating the conflict further by continuing to fight on yet another, even more high-profile level, such as Arbcom. Other than appealing his own ban (which he explicitly said was not what the Arbcom filing was), and except for defending himself if challenged by others, such a user should have no business getting involved in further dispute processes at all. But given the poor wording of the ban decision, unfortunately we can't hold this against him now. The thing about potential sockpuppeting is a different matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, he said that it was because of fear of reprisal from Joe Arpaio, which checks out with his edit history. I completely sympathize with hiding one's identity from Joe Arpaio, but if one does not want their actions on a page like Talk:Historicity of Jesus associated with their main account, they should not make those edits. If unmerited/unevidenced/attacking requests come up again, it may be worthwhile to extend the topic ban to include seeking arbitration on Historicity of Jesus, on the grounds of WP:POINT. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal's request that the ArbCom impose discretionary sanctions on Historicity of Jesus is the only reasonable edit that I have seen from Fearofreprisal. Discretionary sanctions are needed as a way of controlling disruptive editors, such as FOR, on that article and related articles. Based on the wording of the topic ban, his Request for Arbitration was not a violation of the ban (and actually was reasonable). There seems to be a lot of idle discussion of whether this editor is a sockpuppet, but there is a procedure for dealing with sockpuppets. Can we close this ANI thread while any sockpuppet investigations and the Request for Arbitration run their course? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "idle discussion". The issue was raised by me as a question about the consequences for the other account should FoR be indeffed. As far as I know the other account is not currently a sockpuppet as such, since its edits do not - as far as we know - overlap with those of FoR. Ian is correct about FoR's declared motivation: see User_talk:Fearofreprisal#Topic_ban. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, back in February 8, 2013, I filed an SPI on FearofReprisal, as his behavior matched not 1, but at least 4 other id's.

I'd love to share the link with you, but the case was not only not investigated, but it was rev'deled by a clerk (now a checkuser ). SO yes, I agree FearofReprisal is socking. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As I understand the topic ban, FOR had every right to file the request. However, FOR also made a very pointy table at his own page over all the main editors at Historicity of Jesus and that was certainly a breach of the topic ban. An admin deleted the table [73].Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that, based on the wording of the topic-ban, FOR had a right to file the RfAR. He didn't have a right to compile the table, but he may not have understood that the topic-ban applied in user space as well as in other spaces. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Neisseria meningitidis article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.239.3.183 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. I've also reported the IP at WP:AIV. (Although any admins reading this are more than invited to take care of it). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Module Syrian Civil War detailed map

Greetings all. I have a general question/concern - I have never "reported" an issue on this page before; if this is the wrong venue, or if my format or approach is improper, apologies in advance. My concern is regarding the general handling/editing of the aforementioned page. Concisely, inaccuracy/vandalism/POV pushing/vitriolic argument is epidemic. Unsourced pro-opposition editing misrepresentation of information in given sources, more mispresentation of information in given sources, more of the same, edits based on community accepted sources being reverted, unsourced edits without community consenus, the use of pro-SAA sources to validate edits marking SAA advances, and, as a side note, vandalism by random IP addresses on the Iraq module (which is essentially the sister map to the Syrian module). Please note that the above represent a mere fraction of the whole, and this sample is pulled from the last 7 days alone. Many "discussions" on the talk page are far from constructive as well. Simply, is there anything to be done about this? 1RR binds the hands of editors trying to combat such violations(?)/disruptive editing. Just looking for advice or help. Again, if I have committed any sins of procedural omission or etiquette, please forgive and advise. Thanks for your time Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP-related dispute at BLPN, with associated edit war at the article

This discussion is going nowhere, and the article (The Federalist (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) has seen edit-warring for a couple of days now [74]. This is very much about an external dispute being imported into Wikipedia; I suggest some intervention should be considered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe delete and salt the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Bugs, that would not be a solution worth discussing. From my perspective, the issue in the present BLP/N discussion is that a handful of editors do not like the factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content that has been added to The Federalist (website) article regarding the recent Neil deGrasse Tyson "quotegate" controversy, and demand that such content be removed as a BLP violation, but are completely unable to articulate any specific violation of the BLP policy or related guidelines. Yes, it's a problem, but unless an uninvolved administrator is willing to block discussion participants for having a talk page argument (as we are supposed to do when a content dispute is involved), I don't see what administrative remedies are available. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Have fun fighting the battle, then. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

LOCKDOWN URGENTLY NEEDED!!!! (Just kidding. But seriously, you may want to consider filing a request for full protection.) – Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Already requested and awaiting action. Amortias (T)(C) 19:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As an editor that was completely uninvolved with this prior to noticing it on the BLPN, I looked into it. I simply can't reconcile the "rm per BLP concerns" with the actual content in question. I just can't find any issue with the content that justifies such claims. That said, I'm not sure what type of admin intervention Nomoskedasticity is wanting to see. Blocking of specific editors? Page protection? This request for intervention is very vague, and the lone "response" generated (from BB above) is quite unhelpful. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought this thing had already been deleted as "not notable", and was surprised to see it back in discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The result of the RfD for The Federalist (website) was keep. [75] --Obsidi (talk ) 21:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I would like to point out that Obsidi appears to be WP:NOTHERE to contribute to Wikipedia. In the seven years since he has activated his account, he has not created a single article nor contributed any significant content.[76]. His account is primarily used to disrupt the Tyson BLP. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I would like to respond to this personal attack. As you said, I have had this account for many years, but usually Wikipedia does a fine job of editing things and I don't disagree. Sometimes I might make suggestiosn to people on how to improve or in other ways try to help make the articles better. Its true I have gone on a hiadus and not edited much for a while over the 5 years I have been here. But that doesn't mean I am WP:NOTHERE see Wikipedia:Sleeper account I am actively editing at the moment because of what I saw as attempts at Wikipedia:Gaming the system. All of my posts have been policy based. Can you provide a diff the where I was disruptive Viriditas (talk)? This is now the 4th time by my measure that Viriditas has personally attacked me (to the point that I was about to go to WP:ANI myself before Viriditas removed his attacks). Including entering discussions on unrelated topics just to personally attack me. If the administrators wish to discuss my behavior I am happy to do so. All I ask that it be given its own section and that Viriditas be considered if WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate. --Obsidi (talk ) 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
          • I have alleged you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In the context of ANI, this is not a personal attack but an observation about your contribution history and a concern with moving forward. The majority of your edits concern Neil deGrasse Tyson, mostly on talk pages and noticeboards. Within those discussions, you have shown a penchant for IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, and you have focused solely on defending and pushing through fringe attacks against Tyson at all times. Since you're not here to build an encyclopedia, I propose that your account be temporarily blocked until you decide to contribute in a constructive fashion. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Feel free to create a section to talk about my behavior (make sure you add diffs of all the bad thing you think I have done!). My only comment so far on here was about the RfD that was decided as keep. --Obsidi (talk ) 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• The editorial behavior at this article and talkpage is abysmal even by the generally poor standards of Wikipedia political articles. Edit-warring and combativeness are rampant and are drowning out reasonable voices. I am strongly considering blocking Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs), Cwobeel (talk · contribs), and Obsidi (talk · contribs) as the most egregious edit-warriors, both to create some breathing room for discourse and to send a message about appropriate editing norms.

  While poor behavior is not limited to these three, they are the most active edit-warriors at the article and thus represent a reasonable starting point for administrative intervention aimed at promoting more appropriate editing norms. Both Cwobeel and Factchecker have previous blocks for edit-warring on partisan political topics; Factchecker's approach stands out even on that talkpage for its combativeness and vitriol; and Obsidi is a single-purpose agenda account whose last hundred or so edits are dedicated solely to litigating one side of this partisan political dispute. I'm open to other suggestions to promote a better editing environment on this page and article, preferably from people not already neck-deep in the battle. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have not edit warred unless you consider a single revert to be edit warrig, just check the page History. And from all the contention, I have been one of the few editors making efforts to find content for the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that I have been very active in this topic recently on the talk page. I have tried to make almost all my posts policy based (including answering as many of the questions from the editors who disagree). I would hope that just being active editor in the talk page alone doesn't qualify one to be blocked. --Obsidi (talk ) 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @MastCell: Please tread very lightly. I entered this purportedly BLP-related discussion only in the last 24 hours, as a previously univolved editor, and I can say with complete candor and honesty that Cwobeel and Factchecker are not the only discussion participants who have crossed the line rhetorically in the last 12 hours. Singling either or both of them out for special treatment would be nothing more than selective enforcement. Speaking as a previously uninvolved editor, I am disappointed by the degree of rhetoric employed and the attempts to wield BLP policy as a club to obtain a desired outcome in a matter where the alleged BLP violations are tenuous. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Any enforcement is going to be selective on some level. I attempted to make my selection criteria clear. I recognize that you may not agree with them, but I don't view status quo as a workable option here. I am avoiding comment on the application of WP:BLP; I think there are principled and compelling arguments to be made on both sides of the BLP question, but those arguments are not being made because strident, rapid-fire posts and edit-warring are drowning them out. However, regardless of the BLP question, edit-warring is a major part of the problem and the basis for the proposed sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As long as we recognize that blocks are preventative, not punitive, I will leave it in your hands. Everyone has now been warned. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

One possibility would be to stubify the article, protect it for a month, and allow tempers to cool. RFCs can be then initiated to find consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mastcell: I'll be happy to not to touch that article or the talk page for a few weeks, if that would assuage your concerns. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I will start right now and voluntarily avoid editing that article and related pages until Nov 1st. - Cwobeel (talk)

How would that be different then the RfD that failed recently?[77] --Obsidi (talk ) 22:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That was an AfD discussion. RFCs are useful to attract uninvolved editors to weigh in in a content dispute. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I saw you making attempts at finding a middle ground earlier, but "stubbifying" the article is not a good idea. Any way you slice it, only one paragraph/section is in dispute. I also saw that your attempt at inserting third-party criticism of The Federalist was quickly deleted; if we are going to argue for inclusion of a brief statement of the "quotegate" controversy, then, to my way of thinking, there is little room for excluding reliably sourced and balanced criticism of the online magazine itself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever works, Dirtlawyer1. I am taking myself out of the fry for a while with the hope that cooler heads will prevail and a middle ground can be found. One thing is clear, the current environment, vitriol, and contention is getting us nowhere fast. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Protecting it would be a good way of forcing everyone to go do something else for a while. Hopefully this would help calm matters somewhat. RFC's should if listed correctly draw in outside input through the request for feedback service. Fingers crossed a greater range of input will help build consensus. Amortias (T)(C) 22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree protecting it would calm matters down. I would suggest picking the current page, the current page with removing the "Neil deGrasse Tyson controversy" section, or replace that section with the compromise section in the "proposed NPOV edit" in section 30 of Talk:The Federalist (website), and then lock the page. I have explained my reason for what I think should be included or not on the talk page, and will accept any of the 3 above if that is what an admin thinks the page should be. --Obsidi (talk ) 22:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Now have IP's jumping on board to remove the content. Will try to bump the page protection Amortias (T)(C) 23:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Im apparently better than I gave myself credit for. Page is now protected before I even had chance to chase. Will need to be taken to the talk page to discuss Amortias (T)(C) 23:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article due to edit warring. I've also removed the material identified as a potential BLP violation. Work it out on the article talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 23:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:TypeONegative13 personal attacks and edit-warring

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

---

User TypeONegative13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly declined my requests to stop adding information into a certain article - Slipknot (band) - which has since been protected to prevent further edits; on top of this however, he (or she) has been launching a tirade of personal attacks against myself, which can be seen in the below logs, despite my attempts to keep the conversation civil: [78] [79] [80] [81]

It's clear that the user is an avid Slipknot fan, but their edits to numerous articles on subjects related to the band are, at best, disruptive; he has been warned several times on the matter. Indeed, their last edit (as of writing) was simply an insult directed at myself, after I made it clear there was no need for such use of language. (And I fully expect another one when I notify about this report.)

Personally, my good faith has run dry with this individual, and I would like to request a restriction of their ability to edit (or a full ban) for a length of time to be determined by the administrator dealing. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well theres definetly personal attacks and edit warring hes also worked on the [82] to add unsourced information. Amortias (T)(C) 22:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked TypeONegative13 for a week for personal attacks and edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 23:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting interaction ban with Hijiri88

User:Hijiri88 has continuallly attacked and harassed me.

• He recently started a section here on ANI requesting that I be indefinitely banned. [83], based upon my having filed a request for arbitration.[84]. Hijiri88 is not a party to the arbitration request. This appears to be an attempt to do an end-around run on ArbCom.
• He nominated a page in my userspace for deletion. This page contained statistical data supporting the request for abitration.
  • He did not sign and date his nomination of the page at [85]
  • He did not notify me of the nomination, as required by [86]. As a result, there was no discussion, and I discovered the deletion only by accident, after it happened.
  • The deletion has interfered with the arbitration process.

These interactions have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. They are simple harassment. While Hijiri88 has attacked and harassed me in a number of other posts, these two incidents should be sufficient evidence to show that he should be banned from interacting with me, to prevent future incidents, and further interference with the arbitration process. I do not believe that any other form of dispute resolution will be effective in this case. I will not address any comments having to do with anything related to my topic-ban, or the subject of the arbitration request. Any such comments should be directed to ArbCom, at [87]. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)