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).

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 ([13] & [14]). 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.

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 [15], and then clicking "buy" and "find freelancers" and A quick search confirms there 22 people are advertising wikipedia related services there [16] (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. [17] 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)

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.

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 [18] [19] ? 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)

The bullying here does not seem to come from Rebecca, and I think Wesley should remember the spirit of WP:BITE and think twice before reverting constructive edits, even when imperfect. I've restored the music video info and sourced it/linked to the official videos, following the guidelines at WP:SONG#Lyrics. I'm also deeply troubled by Wesley's comments on CT Cooper's talk last month: he concluded from some "profiling" methods that Rebecca's probably a minor, which leads to this tasteful quote: "It is becoming well-known these days that females under a certain age start to behave nastily and will go to any extreme to cause distress to people who "target" them". Beyond the underlying sexism that our friends over at the WP:GGTF will no doubt appreciate, I think this form of thinking goes 100% against WP:AGF and drives many editors away from his area of expertise/control around the Eurovision project, if not from Wikipedia altogether. For these reasons, I would ask uninvolved administrators to warn Wesley Mouse that such an attitude will lead to sanctions. 82.236.1.237 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly why has 82.236.1.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) poked their nose in something that they have no involvement in or not even connected with? And secondly, the comments at CT Cooper's talk page were in an observational context, so why twist such remarks out of context, when you have no clue in what context they were being made. Thirdly, the spirit of WP:BITE, means not to bite newcomer's; Rebecca isn't a newcomer; she's been a registered user for almost a year, and should at least have a basic knowledge of what Wikipedia is all about, including its rules, policies, and guidelines. If content is added without citations, then it may be challenged by adding {{cn}} or removing the content. On a few occasions, I would add sources myself, only because I had recently read such a source connected to content that had not been sourced. When adding new content to an article, the onus on citing their content with verified and reliable sources, is really on the editor who adds the content - not on other editor's to follow behind with a dustpan and brush sweeping up the crumbs left behind. And that attitude to strongly urge admins to ban me is unacceptable, as you do not know me, nor know the full in's and out's of the entire conversations or situations that involved other editor's and not yourself. Wes Mouse 12:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer your points in order:

• When you come to ANI, you're looking for uninvolved editors. I think my opinion (or any other uninvolved editor's) is valuable precisely because I have no prior involvement, and the principle of this encyclopedia is that can anyone can poke their nose as long as it is constructive and leads to improved articles.
• Secondly, I read the whole discussion, and I don't think the context (Rebecca's sometimes clumsy editing) excuses your assumptions and sweeping statements about "females under a certain age". I stand by my point: by repeatedly reverting her and warning her for policy violations when such violations actually don't exist (both WP:SONG#Lyrics and WP:DABSONG do not say what you thought they did), you have impeded addition of worthwhile content to the encyclopedia and driven her to frustration and resentment, emotions that I can fully understand.
• Third, except in BLP cases, you never have to remove unsourced content, especially when it appears uncontroversial and can be sourced by a 30-second Google/Youtube search, as in the case of the music videos.
• Finally, I in no way want you to be banned. I would like you to be warned for your specific behaviour in that case, so that you can improve your interactions with other editors. I know you do a great job around the Eurovision project, but it should not give you a free pass to bully others. We all have shortcomings, and the collaborative nature of Wikipedia allows the community to help us be more conscious and overcome them. 176.182.46.248 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (different IP, same person as above)

And I'll clarify further to your points in order:

• People come to ANI for uninvolved admins to intervene; and for any other "uninvolved" editors who may have had dealings with the user's concerned to pass comments if necessary.
• To say "repeatedly reverting" is over-the-top. For crying out loud, both Rebecca and myself, along with 76 other members of WP:ESC edit the same genre of articles, most of us will have most, if not all, on our watchlist. The fact that I am first to act cannot be see as "repeatedly reverting", just the fact that I'm more active and one-the-ball. Other user's have "repeatedly reverted" her actions, yet I don't see them being accused in the same manner that I am being done so. And my comment regarding females of a certain age is not sexist, nor your so-called view-point that you stand by. The issue alone has been and still is being covered in the media, and I am probably not the first Wikiepdian or living person to have come across issues of that nature. As I said at the time, that it is becoming a well-known factor these days - that isn't being sexist, just stating an opinion based on the nature of current day things. I have a niece of young age, and even she has behaved in similar ways with other people - so fact is evident. However, I'm not downgrading people just because they chose to do something in that manner, I merely comment on what I have read and witnessed. I am entitled to assert my opinion. That is why we have freedom of speech. Wes Mouse 14:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Project Eurovision pride's itself on making sure all content is sourced and verified. One only needs to read the fifth object for WP:ESC to see that sourcing is vital - purely because there are a lot of fan-made websites that report on Eurovision content, most of which is unreliable. That is why for Eurovision-related content, the project's members prefer that all' content be sourced, so that we are portraying across near-accurate details in an encyclopaedic manner. For example, Rebecca has on numerous occasions changed the date of birth on BLP's but not provided citation to verify these changes. Rebecca has been challenged several times by Jjj1238 over this, and the pair of them have got into heated arguements over it - some via edit summary comments, and one on Rebecca's talk page in which she was very uncivil towards Jjj1238. And if it is so "quick and simple" to find a source on Google/YouTube, then it would be just as quick for whoever adds content to add the citation too. After all they will have viewed the source in the first place, in order to have knowledge of what new material to add to an article. To half-do the job is bone-idleness. To put it more bluntly, we don't go for a shit and expect someone else to wipe our backsides for use once we've finished - we'd do the job ourself.
• And I do not need to be warned for anything. My interactions are perfectly normal. I don't beat around the bush, mince my words, or tip-toe around just to get a point across. I call a spade, a spade. There are Wikipedian's that use a more harsher tone than I have used, yet it is perfectly acceptable for them, yet not acceptable for me? If you knew me, and knew what I have been through, then you'd understand why I don't beat about the bush and say things as they are. Wouldn't you prefer someone spoke to you with utmost honesty, rather than bubblewrap their comments? Because I prefer honesty, regardless of whether what a person has to say may be harsh or hurtful. Most people on here know about the loss of my mother, the abusive and physical attacks received from my now ex-partner. All that life-experience has caused me to gain a backbone and toughen up.

Like I also pointed out, some of Rebecca's edits have been excellent and show potential of her being an outstanding contributor. However, some have been repeated errors, errors which she has been told time and time again not to do, yet she still does them. I'll happily cut her some slack, but someone needs to also tell her that she seriously needs to pay attention to what other's say, respond to people when they make a comment and/or question. I know people say that ignorance is bliss, but purposely ignoring user's is damn-right rude. Wes Mouse 14:38, 14 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)

Supreme Deliciousness doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. We are here to have frank and forthright discussions, a gentle caution about canvassing - if someone perceives it is occurring (whether it is or not is irrelevant) - is perfectly acceptable. We should not force other editors to communicate their thoughts or concerns in codewords or cryptographs for fear of being dragged to ANI as has been done in this complaint. DocumentError (talk) 03:38, 14 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 [20] and here [21]. Also note the editor reporting said the following, "You're absolutely right. Without a strong reference, this matter is moot" here [22]. 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 [23], here [24], and here [25]. 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"[26] 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[27], 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: [28] 21:27, 10 October 2014

Revert 2: [29] 21:40, 10 October 2014

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

Discussion at ANI: [30]

Discussion at talk page: [31]

WCM's uncivil summaries/edits were conveniently cleaned-up, so we can't really see them: [32]

The proof of the 1RR violation can be extracted from the following conversation: [33][34][35][36]

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

Revert 1: [37] 20:00, 11 April 2014

Revert 2: [38] 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,[39][40] while at the same time admitting that self-published sources are not reliable.[41] 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 [42][43]). 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)

As an uninvolved party I've reviewed Langus-TxT's concerns regarding Wee Curry Monster and they seem to be solidly founded. An unnecessary battlefield mentality is at play that does not belong on WP. Wikipedia should not be about trying to get in the last word or advance a particular worldview, while negating others, but that seems to be exactly what is occurring. It seems like offering Wee Curry Monster an opportunity to pursue other topic interests for an additional period of six months would be beneficial both to him and to WP. DocumentError (talk) 03:34, 14 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 [44], per WP:BRD I started the talk page discussion. John can confirm the WP:BLP issue.
3. Falkland Islands [45] and [46] 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: [47][48] --Langus (t) 15:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As noted by WCM above, I've recently suggested that they take a break from either Wikipedia or Argentina-related topics, which I think remains a good idea given that they seem to keep getting involved in heated disputes at the moment. Regarding this report, it seems rather overblown and hard to take seriously as a result. WCM clearly reverted more than once in Top Gear controversies, which wasn't a good idea regardless of circumstances. The edits in the Falkland Islands article were very different, so I don't see how they'd be a 1RR violation (except in a technical sense). Moreover, these two edits were made 6 months ago, so it's silly to bring this up now and outright misleading to place this under a statement implying that the edits took place "in the past few weeks". Ian Gow is clearly out of the scope of the topic ban, and I can't see any sensible reason for it having been raised here (the topic ban is rather specific) especially as it's blindingly obvious from the article's history that WCM's reverts were 6 months apart! Taken together, these examples clearly don't illustrate a series of 1RR violations and two of the examples seem to have been provided in bad faith. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

“ "WCM; I concur that the topic ban was not imposed for incivility per-se. I have to agree that you violated the 1RR arrangement here though: the IP's behaviour wasn't helpful, and I note that they appear to have a seriously problematic history, but their edits weren't vandalism and you should have asked an admin to intervene or waited for other editors to respond". ”

Signed: Nick-D 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are your words Nick-D.[49] Maybe I should reciprocate you groundless accusation of bad faith and denounce that now you're just trying to help a personal friend of yours as WCM is.

Note also that it isn't my intention to imply that these edits are recent; I've put the date next to them! By "reaching its climax in the past few weeks" I'm referring mostly to WCM's behavior in the talk pages and articles he has cited (e.g. [50][51][52] and his recent idea of banning a whole bunch of sources without considering them in context). None of the 1RR violations involved me in any way. --Langus (t) 11:25, 14 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)

• The IP's contributions are almost 100% disruptive. In my personal opinion, AR, a block would fall into the "any reasonable admin" category. But they are clearly targeting you and your edits so some outside assistance might be helpful. Agree, though, that a block is unlikely to have any functional impact. You've logged it here; that's a start. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:47, 14 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...

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

---

Someone wanna indef this guy? He gets a TBAN[53] on the historicity of Jesus, makes about 3 edits in basically unrelated areas, then after less than a week posts[54] 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) Withdrawn I hadn't noticed TParis's addition of an "except for ArbCom" clause to the TBAN, so my initial request is all but moot. It's indisputably the case that his earlier creation of a user subpage attacking a select group of other contributors was in violation, and his use of a sock account (that appears to have initially been created years ago with a good justification) just to troll a page by propping up a fringe conspiracy theory, as well as the continued personal attacks ("X disagrees with me, therefore X must not only be a Christian, but a Christian apologist" -- note that in roughly half the cases X isn't even Christian), probably atill merit a site ban, but we'll see how arbitration works out first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 14 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 [55].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 [56], 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 [57].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)

• Comment: I think it depends on how the arbs handle the case filing. If they close it as a frivolous filing, a case could be made for a site ban. However, they appear to be taking the proposal to implement discretionary sanctions seriously. I'm leaning against a site ban, unless a persuasive case can be made that filing for arbitration was intended to be an escalation of the previous dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

I've reviewed the issues and this seems to be much ado about nothing and doesn't rise to the level of POV pushing. It can be handled by proactively reaching out to editors with alternate views and doesn't require ANI. DocumentError (talk) 03:30, 14 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 [58]. 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)

It has been locked... a couple hours ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 14 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. [59] --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.[60]. 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)

I wish that you displayed similar concern for willingness to avoid content policies and abuse social policies as an end run around content disputes. Were that your standard, you'd just block Cwobeel and then see where things stand. Also, you ought to get another admin to do the block, otherwise it'll look like you're lashing out at me in retaliation for arguing with you at Joni Ernst. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 14 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)

With the page being protected (see below), blocks would be solely punitive and thus inappropriate, so I'll withdraw my proposal above. MastCell ^Talk 00:53, 14 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?[61] --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)

[ NPA redacted ] Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 14 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: [62] [63] [64] [65]

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 [66] 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. [67], based upon my having filed a request for arbitration.[68]. 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 [69]
  • He did not notify me of the nomination, as required by [70]. 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 [71]. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Notified other involved party as I am of the impression Fearofreprisal wants to have no interaction with them. Amortias (T)(C) 00:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I did notify him, but I was a little slow.[72] Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this seems like its going to be difficult for anyone to discuss. The first part relates to an ongoing ANI thread (which should be dealt with there) and ArbCom which you won't discuss. The second part relates to an unsigned nomination (unhelpful but not actionable), a lack of notification (unhelpful but unlikely to result in action) and ArbCom which you won't discuss. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Hijiri88 made a bad mistake by not notifying Fearofreprisal about the MfD request for a subpage of Fearofreprisal (see permalink of how it looked—that page does violate WP:POLEMIC despite its subtlety). An interaction ban should only occur after a series of problems, and it is likely that the current issues will soon be over as FoR is topic banned and the Arbcom case request will probably be resolved in a reasonably short time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I didn't notice that Arbitration requests were an exception to the TBAN until it was pointed out to me in the section above. Se ems like a uncharacteristically bad judgement on User:TParis' part; several other users agree that this exception probably should not have been allowed in the first place , but I accept that it was a failure on my pa rt to review the specifics of Fearofreprisal's ban before posting the above thread. This was a good-faith mistake on my part: Fearofreprisal's "mistakes", on the other hand...
2. I did not ask for Fearofreprisal to be "indefinitely banned". I asked for an indefinite block. The user was TBANned for disruptive behaviour, and then flagrantly continue d his disruptive behaviour in the exact same topic area almost immediately afterward.
3. The very fact that I am "not a party to the arbitration request" is interesting. I have indeed been one of the major contributors to that page over the last few weeks. I largely withdrew once the only editor engaged in disruption was TBANned, but engaged in off-site canvassing making the page almost impossible to save. Fearofreprisal apparently saw my response to him earlier and decided it best not to include me in his "list of Christian apologists trying to insert theology into a history article", and since I was already clearly not a Christian apologist, he saw it as expedient not to invite me to participate in the arbitration discussion. At least two other users have since expressed equal uneasiness at Fearofreprisal making bad-faith (and incorrect) assumptions about their religious convictions, forcing them against their will to make theological professions of faith (or lack thereof) as prerequisites for editing a Wikipedia article.
4. The claim that my request for a block "appears to be an attempt to do an end-around run on ArbCom" is a blatant violation of WP:AGF: Fearofreprisal has flagrantly violated his TBAN in the creation of a user subpage attacking editors who disagree with him on the historicity of Jesus article. Re questing that he be blocked for this and his other offenses (off-site canvassing, sockpuppetry, constant personal attacks, etc.) can not be taken in good faith as an attempt to disrupt an arbitration request.
5. I requested that his TBAN-violating attack page on various users who disagree with him be deleted. I "did not sign" my request because I was editing from a phone and so apparently failed to see the part in the MFD page where it specified that my op comment would not be automatically signed like on page-move requests. I apologize for this extremely minor oversight on my part. I do not apologize for not informing Fearofreprisal of the MFD, though, since despite Fearofreprisal's above misrepresentation this is not a "requirement" but a "recommendation"; indeed, like in the thread above, a direct response from Fearofreprisal would almost certainly have itself been a TBAN violation, so informing him would have been meaningless to begin with.
6. Virtually everyone else thinks the page was created in bad faith and was a direct violation of the TBAN. That is no doubt why it was deleted without discussion on such short notice. The closing admin made no comment to that effect, though, so I can't be sure. It should be noted that, again in violation of his TBAN, Fearofreprisal requested that the deletion be reverted.
7. I clearly don't deserve an IBAN, since the only things I did wrong were minor for matting errors and a slight oversight on the nature of the TBAN (Fearofreprisal did violate the TBAN anyway, so the fact that the ArbCom request was not technically a violation is irrelevant). Fearofreprisal posted ridiculous personal attacks against me on the Historicity of Jesus talk page, on my own talk page, and on this noticeboard: the claim that by responding to these personal attacks I am engaging in "harassment" is laughable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you were disappointed, but Arbcom is a normal exemption per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions.--v/r - TP 03:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is a circular mess. Filing for arbitration is allowed as a condition of Fearofreprisal's topic ban. Therefore, a request for an indefinite ban in the ANI report noted above must convincingly demonstrate that filing for arbitration was done in bad faith. So far, the evidence is inconclusive. It should be resolved there rather than through an interaction ban here. I recommend this filing be closed without prejudice as premature. It may become necessary later if the conduct dispute cannot be resolved by other means. Ignocrates (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates: Please disclose that you are an involved party, who has had substantial conflicts with me. Your "oppose" vote is inappropriate.

Fearofreprisal, I would if I was truly involved. I have barely interacted with you. I don't recall what those "conflicts" might be other than a comment at previous ANI and a statement I just made in arbitration. That is the extent of our "involvement". Ignocrates (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that "substantial conflicts" might mean with you using an old username which is your real name. Nod if you agree (kidding). If that's the case, I apologize for not making the connection sooner. Ignocrates (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hijiri88 had the opportunity to make a statement in the RfA, but instead chose to post an incident here. He did so with the explicit expectation that I would not be able to respond. Quoting him:

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.[73]

While Hijiri88 has provided no evidence of sockpuppetry, in seeking to disclose my "main account's username," he actually seeks to discover my real life name - "outing" me in the process. (See [74]) Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has withdrawn his request that I be indefinitely banned, after discovering that his request was baseless and inappropriate.[75] Yet, he continues to call my username a "sock", despite the fact that I have used it for over 6 years to make almost a thousand edits on over 90 different pages,[76], and despite the fact that he can not provide a single piece of evidence to suggest that I've engaged in sockpuppetry. Further, he continues to make accusations which he knows I can not answer without violating a topic ban.

Beyond this, Hijiri88 continues claim that my statements and supporting evidence in support of a request for arbitration merit me being site-banned. He's trying to use ANI to usurp the authority of ArbCom.

Hijiri88 has not acted in good faith. My request for an interaction ban is both reasonable and justified. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

BS. I already pointed out that your claim that I requested for you to be indefinitely banned was wrong (you already are indefinitely banned -- I asked for a block). Additionally, of the four rationales I provided (your ArbCom request violating the TBAN, your user page violating the TBAN, your continued personal attacks, and your self-confessed use of a sock account to troll the historicity of Jesus article), only one has been disproven. I withdrew my request for you to be indefinitely blocked at the soonest opportunity (as opposed to after the ArbCom case is closed) because circumstances convinced me that it would be easier to sit back and watch you dig yourself a bigger hole. The Fearofreprisal account has made a little under 1,000 edits in six years (an average of roughly one edit every two days), and virtually all of these edits have been in a relatively small group of pages, virtually all related to Joe Arpaio or the historicity of Jesus; 529 of these edits have been made since July 2014, and 520 of these have been related to the subject of the TBAN.

As for your continued requested that I be "indefinitely banned": what good will it do? I have only ever interacted with you on the article you are already banned from editing, and have never once edited the Joe Arpaio article. The only effect that could possibly come from an IBAN is you going around vandalizing a bunch of pages on Japanese classical literature just to spite me. Go ask any of the admins involved in this thread to find out what will happen with you if you try that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations and edit warring

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

---

This report involves 99.227.245.147 (talk · contribs · count) and Luke Evans (actor). The IP has been violating BLP and edit warring in the article since yesterday. I filed an edit warring report yesterday at AN3, but for whatever reason no action has been taken. Since that time, the IP continues to revert every editor who reverts him, and the battle has been going on non-stop.

Before coming here, I was tempted to block the IP myself under BLP policy despite the fact that I'm WP:INVOLVED, but I decided I didn't want to block and then go through a block review.

Even the edits that other editors have allowed to remain violate policy. For example, the article says that Evans is in a relationship with a Spanish celebrity. Yet, the article, from a Spanish tabloid, which was mainly repeating what the English tabloid the Sun reported, doesn't say that. Here is a Google translation: "The news has announced the British tabloid 'The Sun', citing as a source of information to a friend of the actor who would have stolen the hearts Jon Kortajarena, one of the most wanted men in the world, confirmed the news abandons list of the most desirable bachelors." The tabloid also says: "Meanwhile, neither Jon Kortajarena and Luke Evans, soon to take part in a new film about Dracula, have confirmed or denied their courtship, but the British media highlighted on numerous occasions were seen posing together in public events." ([77]) We can't report garbage like that as a fact in a BLP article.

If you look deeper into the IP's history, you will see other instances of BLP problems, all of which are centered around gay issues.

The IP should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would expect that an IAR block for BLP violations would be acceptable to most regulars here. Blackmane (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked one week for edit warring and BLP violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa, I should have brought this to ANI earlier instead of sitting on my butt and watching in frustration. I removed the Spanish model material from the article for the reasons stated above.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry your report went unactioned for so long. There's nobody around today, it's a holiday in both the US and Canada. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To everyone else, see the talk page section about this for further discussion. If I had spotted the content Bbb23 spotted as being a reiteration from The Sun, I would have removed it as well, or likely simply for being a "confirmation" by someone other than Evans himself. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Chesivoirzr regarding psychology articles or articles that include psychological perspectives

Administrative help is needed concerning Chesivoirzr (talk · contribs). He or she keeps engaging in WP:Disruptive editing at psychology articles or at articles that include psychological perspectives, usually adding poor sources, asking questions in the text and/or engaging in other WP:Editorializing, as seen here, here, here and here. I can see that the editor means well, but his or her edits are usually bad additions, and psychology topics are a WP:Med aspect (an aspect that usually requires WP:MEDRS sourcing). Chesivoirzr has been warned a lot on his or her talk page (mostly by a bot, sure), but has yet to respond to the warnings or to those who have reverted him or her, which is why I didn't post anything to the Chesivoirzr talk page regarding Chesivoirzr's recent WP:Edit warring at the Erikson's stages of psychosocial development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. When a Wikipedia editor is editing disruptively like this, and is not responding on that matter, it seems that a WP:Block is the best route to take regarding that editor. A temporary one at first, so that the editor hopefully gets the point. But if someone here thinks that I or a different editor should first try explaining to Chesivoirzr what he or she is doing wrong, I don't mind. I will alert Chesivoirzr to this thread. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User forcing edits though

Editor User:86.155.189.126 keeps re-adding gamecruft to this[78] article despite being told that it's against WP:GAMECRUFT. It doesn't seem like they read edit summaries. Eik Corell (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no attempt to explain on the IP's talk page in plain English - just several reverts with some alphabet soup in the edit summaries, and then a report to ANI. I agree the content is inappropriate (and I've reverted too), but you should try talking to people before asking for admin intervention. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now offered an explanation at the IP talk page. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If it continues, maybe you can take it to WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Just created an entry there. Eik Corell (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, don't forget that edit-summaries are NOT intended as a means to communicate with someone - they merely describe the edit. Communication takes place on Talkpages. If someone says "they don't read edit-summaries" that that's your fault, not theirs the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkpages are preferred for further discussion if necessary, but an edit summary should be enough in many cases. If someone isn't reading the edit summary to see why something they did was reverted, then they aren't using the system as it's set up. Now, understanding what is said in the summary is a different matter -- and that's another reason we go to talk. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Most newcomers don't even know what an edit summary is, never mind where to look for one. They read that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so they do, then they find their changes are gone, and they have no idea why -- and they haven't the faintest idea of any of the arcane policy and procedure details that experienced editors know about. That's why an edit summary is never the place to discuss something, especially not problematic edits - if a newcomer makes repeated errors, the correct place is always their talk page, which at least gives them a notification that there is something they need to read. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots of IP Vandalism at Hannah Arendt because of German Google doodle

There is a lot of IP Vandalism at Hannah Arendt because it's today's German Google doodle. Please watch or maybe it should be protected against IP editing for a day. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 24 hours. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Legal threat at the BLP noticeboard.[79] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It qualifies, but he might have a point, as someone is speculating at Talk:Joe Vitale (ice hockey) as to whether he might be related to mob figures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - I deleted the contentious question from the talk page - it was 2 years old and unanswered, I hope that wasn't inappropriate of me. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I was debating whether to reply to the question or just delete it; it's probably better in the long run to just delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A question like that is better researched offline, and to only bring it up (if at all) if there is irrefutable evidence. Even then, it's not fair to label an innocent party as being related to a mob boss, unless that fact is already well-known. As to the one making the legal threat, an admin could advise him that in future he should pursue a more appropriate tone of voice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dawn Bard has already left a template note at the IP's talk page. De728631 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Midnight Rider (film)

User:138.229.220.3, User:MHBDCS and User:DavidGroveCam are all single-article accounts that only became active in the last few hours. They appear to be the same person, who has taken an interest in Midnight Rider (film). As seen with this dif, DavidGroveCam wrote this line in his edit summary: this is a legal matter that will result in action against Gothicfilm if they persist in this libelous posting. The article is well sourced, as anyone looking into it can see, and I was not the one who originally put in the text being edit-warred over on the page. The third account was created after I posted WP:3RR warnings at the Talk pages for the first two. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a legal threat. You may want to ask for semi-protection for the article. The admins can handle the SPA's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)